
WJk 




Book *SdU 

PRESE3JTED BY 

3^ as&: 



&LEB CUSH1NG 



CQLUGfttt, 



EVIDENCE 



THE UNITED STATES 



IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF THE 



Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, 



PENDING BEFORE THE 



BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION, 

FOR THE 

FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIMS 

OF THE 

HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICULTURAL COMPANIES, 



WASHINGTON CITY: 

M'GULL & WITHEROW, PRINTERS AND STEREOTYPERS* 

1867. 



X<L &5tXT 



INDEX OF WITNESSES. 



PAGE. 

Allen, Edward J 297 

Alvord, Benjamin , 265 

Applegate, Jesse 11 

Bradley, John , 140 

Burge, Andrew J ...' 101 

Carson, John C 44 

Casey, Silas ' 194 

Chambers, Thomas M 127 

Chapman, H. L 96 

Chapman, John B 145 

Clarke, Frederick A. 89 

Davidson, George , 269 

Dement, John D 3 

Denny, Arthur A 168 

Dougherty, William P '. 101 

Gardner, Charles T. 261 

Gibbs, George — 312 

Goldsborough, Hugh A 173 

Hewitt, C. C . 69 

•Hewitt, R. H 93 

Hill, Bennett H 204 

Kautz, August V 215 

Lane. Daniel E 133 

Lee, George W 287 

Light, Erastus A 120 

McDonald, J. L 122 

McKibbin, David B 157 

McMurtrie William B 296 

Miller, William W ■ 74 

Mogk, Maximilian 271 

More, R. S 116 

Moses, Simpson P 247 

Rinearson, Jacob S 59 

Shazer, George W 118 

Sucklev, George 166, 348 

Wilkes, Charles 228 

Williamson, James E 110 

Wirtz, Horace R 184 



ERRATA. 

Page 325, Int. 19, for "January" read "February." 

Page 334, Ans. to Int. 70, For " the winter of" read "July." 



■:? 



BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION 



UPON THE CLAIMS OF THE 



HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICUL- 
TURAL COMPANIES' CLAIMS. 



In the matter of the Claim of the Pugefs Sound Agricultural 
Company vs. the United States. 

Deposition of a witness [in behalf of the United States] 
sworn and examined before me, Ralph Wilcox, clerk 
of the district court of the United States for the district 
of Oregon, by virtue of a verbal agreement made and 
entered into between W. C. Johnson, Esq., as counsel 
for the United States of America, and Amory Holbrook, 
Esq., as counsel for the Puget's Sound Agricultural Com- 
pany. 

Testimony of John H. Dement. 
John H. Dement being first duly sworn, deposes and testifies 
as follows : 
Int. 1. — State your age, residence, and occupation. 
Ans. — Age, forty-two ; residence, Portland ; I am not en- 
gaged in business now ; I have been engaged in merchandis- 
ing several years. 

Int. 2. — Were you ever in the U. S. Army ? If so, in what 
rank, and how many years ? 

• Ans. — I was eight years in the service, and left it with the 
rank of first lieutenant. 

Int. 3. — During that time, were you stationed on the Pu- 
get's Sound Agricultural Company claim at Nisqually ? If 
so, at what time, and how long ? 

Ans. — I went there in the fall of 1849, and left in the spring « 
of 1853. 



Cross-examination by A. Holbrook, Esq. 

Int. 1. — Have you seen, or had your attention particularly 
called to the value and condition of the Puget's Sound Com- 
pany's property for more than thirteen years? 

Ans. — I have not. 

Int. 2. — Is not your recollection necessarily indistinct in 
regard to the condition of the property, so long ago ? 

Ans. — It may be in regard to the improvements, but not 
to the quality of the soil. 

Int. 3. — Did not that land have an especial value for pur- 
poses of pasturage? 

Ans. — I never heard of any especial value; it is better 
adapted to that purpose than any other. 

Int. 4. — At the time you were there, did not the Company 
have several thousand sheep grazing upon it ? 

Ans. — I think they had. 

Int. 5. — Were there not also several thousand horned 
cattle ? 

Ans. — I don't know the number they had, but never sup- 
posed they had to exceed a thousand, or so. 

Int. 6. — "Were there not also a thousand horses, or more? 

Ans. — I don't know what horses they had — quite a large 
number. 

Int. 7. — Is there any such land, so well situated for stock- 
raising, on the shores of Puget's Sound ? 

Ans. — I think that is equal to any, taking into considera- 
tion the extent; there were other lands more fertile, and had 
more grass, but not so extensive. 

Int. 8. — Are there any other lands north of it, suitable for 
pasturage or stock-raising ? 

Ans. — Very little. 

Int. 9. — Is not the land of the Company the proper out- 
let for the products of the country lying south of it, as well 
as for stock raised in Washington Territory and Oregon, to 
be shipped to Victoria and British Columbia ? 

Ans. — There are other outlets, but I think this is the most 
convenient. 



Int. 10. — Are not these lands of great value for temporary 
pasturage of stock driven from Oregon and other points 
south that it may be recruited before being shipped to a 
market ? 

Ans. — They are useful for that purpose, but unless the 
pasturage has improved very much since I saw it last, it would 
not be very valuable for that purpose. 

Int. 11. — Is there any other land which could be used for 
that purpose ? 

Ans. — I know of none immediately upon the Sound, but 
there are lands some few miles back that would answer the 
purpose. 

Int. 12. — In what direction do these lands lie, and how 
extensive ? 

Ans. — They lie south, and extensive enough for the pur- 
pose mentioned. 

Int. 13. — Did riot the Company between 1849 and 1853 fre- 
quently ship cattle, sheep, and horses to Victoria, by their own 
and chartered vessels? 

Ans. — I believe they did. 

Int. 14. — Did not the Company's land in 1849 and 1850 
seem to be fully stocked, and even more than fully ? 

Ans. — I think it was overstocked, taking into considera- 
tion the quality of the land. 

Int. 15. — Would not the Company's lands, if in their free 
and undisturbed possession and fully stocked, in view of the 
population on Puget's Sound, Vancouver's Island, and British 
Columbia, yearly increasing since 1850, have paid in profits 
a fair interest on a larger valuation of the land than you 
have given ? 

Ans. — Not knowing what the increase of population and 
demand has been, I cannot say. 

Int. 16. — If the Company alone, had had to do with their 
own cattle, do you think they would have been less wild ? 

Ans.— I think they were no more wild when I left, than 
when I went there ; I don't remember their being, molested 
by any one except the Company. 



8 

XnL 17.— Did you ever know any foot-traveller being dis- 
turbed or injured by tbcm ? 

Ans.— I have no recollection of any foot-traveller being 
disturbed or injured by them. 

Int. 18. — Have you not repeatedly seen cattle lying on the 
prairie, and remaining in that position without moving, when 
horsemen rode among them or passed them ? 

A nSm — I have seen them lying, and have passed them with- 
out their getting up. 

Int. 19. — Do you remember seeing large cattle corrals in 
various parts of the land claimed by the Company ? 

Ans. — I do not ; I have seen sheep enclosures. 

Int. 20. — Were you in the way of seeing or knowing what 
settlers in the remote parts of the Company's claim did to 
the Company's cattle ? 

Ans. — Nothing except from rumor. 

Int. 21. — Were there not in 1849 a large number of tame 
cattle on the Steilacoom plain, near Fort Steilacoom, belonging 
to the Company ? 

Ans. — I remember there were some ; but what number, I 
have no idea. 

Int. 22. — State what, in your judgment, was the value 
of the buildings used as Fort Steilacoom, and of the enclo- 
sures around it ? 

Ans. — In all some seven or eight buildings, including sheds; 
I suppose they were worth four or five thousand dollars. 

Int. 23. — "Were there not other buildings on the Company's 
land, besides those at Msqually and Steilacoom ? 

Ans. — There were. 

Int. 24. — Please state where and what, as near as you 
recollect ; with their value. 

Ans. — There was a house two or three miles from the post, 
occupied by one of the servants of the Company, two others, 
also occupied by Company's servants ; the value of which 
I have no idea. 

Int. 25. — What quantity of stock could be subsisted on all 
the pasture lands outside the Company's claim, within forty 
miles, for the year round ? 



Arts. — I am unable to say, I never considered it with that 
view. 

Int. 26. — Are there any pasture lands except those, of the 
Company, nearer than fifteen miles of the place of shipment 
at Steilacoom ? 

Aiis. — I think there are none except some islands in the 
Sound. 

Int. 27.— During the time you were at Steilacoom, was not 
the killing of the Company's cattle by unauthorized persons 
a matter of common and general conversation and joke? 

Ans. — -I heard something said about it, but I don't know 
that it was a subject of general talk. 

Int. 28, — In making your estimate of the land, did you 
consider only its condition from 1849 to 1853, or did you have 
in mind the development of the country, the building of 
towns, the erection of mills, and other improvements in that 
section, during the last twelve years ? 

Ans. — I considered the condition from 1849 to 1853 only. 

Direct Examination resumed by W. C. Johnson. 

Int. 1. — "Whose property were the buildings at Fort Steil- 
acoom, when you first went there, according to your under- 
standing ? 

Ans. — -We rented the buildings from Dr. Tolmie, and sup- 
posed they were owned by the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
Company. I understood, afterwards, that they were erected 
by a Mr. Heath, who died there, and was not in any way 
connected with the Company. 

Question by Mr. Holbrook. 

Int. 1. — Did you not also hear that Mr. Heath was farm- 
ing on shares for the Company, and that the Company had 
furnished him means to erect buildings ? 

Ans.- — I may have heard that, but I don't remember now ; 
I have some indistinct recollection of it. 
2F - 



10 

Int. 2. — Was not the Company in possession of the post 
when it was leased to the United States Government ? 
Arts. — I believe it was. This was after Heath's death, 

JOHK D. DEMEKTa 
Portland, July 27, 1866. 



United States of America, 

District of Oregon, ss. 
I, Ralph Wilcox, clerk of the district court of the United 
States for the district of Oregon, do hereby certify that the 
foregoing deposition, hereto annexed, of John D. Dement, a 
witness produced by and on behalf of the United States, in 
the matter of the claim of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
Company against the United States, before the British and 
American Joint Commission for the adjustment of the same, 
was taken before me, at my office, in the city of Portland, 
district of Oregon, and reduced to writing by myself, in the 
presence of W. C. Johnson, Esq., attorney for the United 
States, and Amory Holbrook, Esq., attorney for the Puget's 
Sound Agricultural Company, on the 27th day of July, A. D. 
1866, according to the date appended to said deposition 
when the same was signed ; and I further certify that to said 
witness, before examination, I administered the following 
oath : "You do solemnly swear that the evidence which you 
shall give in the matter of the claim of the Puget's Sound 
Agricultural Company against the United States shall be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God ; " that after the same was reduced to writing, the 
deposition was carefully read to said witness, and thereupon 
signed by him in my presence. 
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and 
r L g -j affixed the seal of said Court, this ninth day of 
* J August, A. D. 1866. 

RALPH WILCOX, Clerk. 



BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION 



UPON THE CLAIMS OF THE 



HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICUL- 
TURAL COMPANIES' CLAIMS. 



In the matter of the Claim of the Pugefs Sound Agricultural 
Company vs*. the United States, 

Depositions of witnesses produced in behalf of the United 
States, taken before me, J. M. Bacon, county clerk of 
Clackamas county, Oregon, at Oregon City, in said 
county, in pursuance of a verbal agreement made in my 
presence by W. C. Johnson, Esq., attorney for the Uni- 
ted States, and Frank Clark, Esq., attorney for the Pu- 
get's Sound Agricultural Company. 

Testimony of Jesse Applegate. 

Jesse Applegate being first duly sworn, deposeth and says : 

Int. 1. — State your age, residence, and occupation. 

Ans. — -Age, fifty-five years ; residence, Yoncalla, Douglas 
county; farmer. 

Int. 2. — Have you any other profession? If so, state 
what it is ? 

Ans. — I was in early life a surveyor and civil engineer. 

Int. 3. — How long have you resided in Oregon? 

Ans. — Twenty-three years next November. 

Int. 4. — Have you examined the lands and other property 
claimed by the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, north 
of the Columbia river ? It so, state when, in connection 
with whom, and under whose instruction? (The last two 
clauses objected to as irrelevant and immaterial.) 

Ans, — I have examined certain property claimed by the 



n 

Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, in company with J- 
S. Einearson and J. C. Carson, under instructions from "W". 
C. Johnson, attorney on the part of the United States, im- 
mediately prior to the 20th day of August, 1866, at which 
time, in connection with the two gentlemen named, I agreed 
in the report. (So much of the foregoing answer as follows 
after 1866, is objected to, because it is not responsive to the 
question, and because it is immaterial and irrelevant ; the 
agreement of a witness to a report in regard to facts, which 
must be proved by him, by his testimony, at this time being 
immaterial and incompetent evidence.) 

Int. 5. — Have you made, in connection with the gentle- 
men named, a statement in writing of your estimate of val- 
ues resulting from this examination ? If so, ,please now 
present it, and make it a part of your deposition. (Question 
objected to by counsel for the Company, as irrelevant and 
immaterial, and the introduction of the report objected to 
as incompetent and unauthorized by law. Counsel for the 
Company also enter their protest and object to this mode of 
examination of witness, because the same is unauthorized 
by law, and claim that the witness should be particularly 
inquired of in reference to all matters testified to by him, so 
that an opportunity may be given to interpose objections to 
the questions of counsel, and the answers of the witness so 
far as the same may be incompetent, irrelevant, and imma- 
terial.) 

Am.— I have, and submit the report marked " G. " (Coun- 
sel for the United States now tenders to the counsel for the 
Company the examination of the written statement, referred 
to in the foregoing answer, so that they may object, if they 
desire, to anything therein that is illegal or improper.) 

(Counsel for the Company insists that if the paper, termed 
the report, is to be used in any respect as testimony of this 
witness, it shall be written out in full as his evidence in this 
deposition, the same being neither an exhibit or a document, 
capable of being introduced as such, but simply the written 
Statement of the witness and of other parties.) 



13 

«G." 

Portland, Oregon, August 20, 1866. 
To Hon. W. C. Johnson, Attorney y $>c. : ' 

Sir : Having inspected the farms and lands now in pos- 
session of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, in the 
Territory of Washington, we report upon — 

FIRST — " THE COWLITZ FARM." 

This possession is on or near the right hank of the Cowlitz 
river, in Lewis county, "Washington Territory. The land in 
undisputed possession of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
Company, and occupied and cultivated by Mr. Roberts, 
their agent, amounts to about one hundred and sixty six 
acres; the soil is of good quality, being in most places loam 
upon a sub-soil of clay; water-polished or rolled stones, every- 
where in the middle section of Washington Territory, crop- 
ping out only upon points where the winter freshets have 
removed or prevented the accumulation of soil. Most of 
the land within the enclosures of the Puget's Sound Agri- 
cultural Company, at Cowlitz, seems to have been a long 
time cultivated, without any attention having been given to 
the preservation or renovation of the soil, for which reason, 
the crops upon it are light compared with those upon like 
soils in the Willamette Valley, and the grazing in the pas- 
tures, as well as on the " common," is greatly injured by the 
growth of sorrel and the untimely and excessive grazing to 
which it has been subjected. For these and other reasons 
which temporarily effect the value • of real estate in that 
vicinity, we think the recent sales of real estate on Cowlitz 
prairie would indicate a lower value to land, exclusive of 
improvements, than we, in view of its quality and location, 
would fix upon it. We think the land included by the en- 
closures of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company and of 
the like quality in the vicinity, worth five dollars per acre. 
The fencing, except a part enclosing a meadow on the west 
side, is in tolerably good repair ; it is of the Virginia, or 
worm fence description ; the rails are mostly old, and around 
the meadow above referred to, is not in repair. From the 



14 

price of labor and convenience of material, a worm fence 
with twenty rails to the rod would cost about eighty cents/per 
rod on Cowlitz prairie. We think the Puget's Sound Agri- 
cultural Company's fencing, on an average, worth half as 
much as a new fence. 

The buildings are of the description and values following, 
to wit : 

1st. A dwelling-house 33 by 43 feet, fourteen feet high, in 
seven rooms, has two fire-places, and Mr. Eoberts says was 
built in 1838 ; it is in bad order, and the wood exposed to 
the weather much decayed ; value $500. 

2d. Kitchen in rear of the house, 16 by 18 feet, and ten feet 
high, in a state of decay; value $100. 

3d. An old store-house 12 by 12 feet, and eight feet high ; 
value, $100. These buildings are of logs, grooved into posts. 

4th. A barn 40 by 30 feet, and fourteen feet high, built of 
squared timber, grooved into posts ; there are sheds on three 
sides of the main building twelve feet wide, roofing of split- 
boards ; value $600. 

5th. Stable 25 by 31 feet, and twelve feet high, built and 
covered similarly to the barn, old and rotten ; value $200. 

6th. An open cow-shed, roof of split-boards, on posts set in 
the ground, eight feet high ; all new, and worth $150. 

7th. Stable 15 by 20 feet, and ten feet high, framed on 
sills, with walls and roof like the barn ; new; and worth $200, 

8th. Lodging for servants 14 by 16 feet, and ten feet high, 
built of round logs, one fire-place, and split board roof; new 
and in good order ; worth $150. 

9th. Poultry-house 12 by 12 feet, a pig-sty and well-shed ; 
all valued at $100. 

Recapitulation. 

Value of Cowlitz Farm, 166 acres of land, at 

$5 per acre $830 00 

1276 rods of fencing at forty cents per rod - 510 40 

Nine buildings 2.100 00 



Aggregate value - - - $3,440 40 



15 

SECOND — THE PEGET's SOtJTTD AGBICUtTtJAL COMPANY'^ CLAIM OS 

pugbt's sound. 

The Company are in undisputed possession of the landing 
on the Sound, about one and a-half miles west of their build- 
ings, (Tort Xisqually. | and of a farm of about 847 acres, em- 
bracing besides those of the fort, all buildings and appurte- 
nances necessary to a large farm. The farm, except a short 
distance bounded by a lake, is enclosed and crossed with 
worm fences. Those south of the beautiful little stream 
that runs through the premises, are mostly new and in good 
repair, and seem to hare been made in course of the last 
three years : those north of the stream, and the interior lines, 
are of old rails and out of repair. For reasons, the same as 
considered at Cowlitz, we value the fences here at seventy- 
five cents per rod. This valuation does not include yards, 
corrals, kc. immediately surrounding buildings, which have 
been considered as appurtenances, and valued with the 
buildings to which they belonged. The buildings are of the 
following description and value, to wit : 

1. The warehouse at the landing on the Sound : it is 30 by 
61 feet, and 12 feet high, built of squared timber, grooved 
into posts, a wooden floor and shingle roof: the sills are be- 
ginning to decay; value 8500. There is also an old log 
building at the landing, but in ruins, and valueless. 

2d. A new building, being the southwest in the line, run- 
ning parallel to the west wall or enclosure of the fort 25^r by 
16J feet, with a shed addition 10 by 16 feet : the main build- 
ing is twelve feet high, enclosed with unplaned weather- 
boards, rough plank floor, and shingle roof: value $21 '. . 

3d. A framed house painted white, 20 by 30 feet, and ten 
feet high, a hall running through, with two rooms on the 
right and one on the left : it is used as a lodging-house, and 
worth |400. 

4th. An old house of squared timber 32 by 2C feet, and 
ten feet hio'h, used as a work-shop, much decayed, worth 
$100. 

5th. A granary 31 by 20 feet, and ten feet high, built of 
squared timber ; the roof is bad ; value 8250. 



16 



6th. The "shop" or "store" is built with upright boards^ 
and battens on the joints, is 20 by 30 feet, and two stones 
(sixteen and a-half feet) high, has an ell [L] shed 10 by 15 
feet, in rear, shingle roof; the building new but rough, worth 



7th. Two bastions, one at the northwest, the other at the 
southeast corner of the old enclosure ; they are alike in all 
respects, being built of squared timber let into posts; they 
are fourteen feet square at base, and about twenty-two feet 
high; the upper story projects on all sides two feet beyond 
the lower walls ; the northwest is used as a dove-cote, the 
other seemed to be empty ; the two worth $200* 

8th. A privy, small houses, and temporary sheds along the 
west wall, (five in number,) valued at $150. 

9th. A hennery, 150 by 92 feet, enclosing an enclosure 44 
by 54 feet; the latter enclosure having a hen-house in the 
middle of it; the whole valued at $250. 

10th. Old storehouse 61 by 30 feet, and twelve feet high, 
built in the usual way with squared timber, and has a first 
and second floor, roof of split boards, newer than the rest of 
the building, which is rotting, valued at $500. 

11th. Attached to and in rear of the old storehouse, is 
a packing-house, and a wagon and wood-shed; the house 
old, the sheds temporary, worth $200. 

12th. An old dwelling-house 32 by 18 feet, and ten feet 
high, of the usual square timber walls, a shed addition of 9 
by 18 feet, in rear, old and rotten, worth $200. 

13th. A dairy 11 by 16 feet, protected from the sun by a 
shed covering the building, and extending on all sides six 
feet beyond it ; the whole cheap and temporary ; value $100. 

14th. Cook-house and wash-house, one 14 by 22, the other 
13 by 18, old and temporary ; the two worth $300. 

15th. The agent's dwelling-house ; the body of the build- 
ing 30 by 50 feet, and twelve feet high, with a porch eight 
feet wide on both sides, and at one end a bath-house, and 
bedroom at the other; the walls of the building are of up- 
right planks, weather-boarded and painted white, with plain 
cornice finish) and shingle roof. The lower floor is divided 



17 

by a hall, with a flight of stairs running from it to the upper 
story; there are two fire-places and five rooms below, finished 
with cloth and paper, ceiled above with plank; this house is 
in pretty good repair, and worth $3,000. 

16th. A paling, the posts -of which is now rotting off, sepa- 
rates the mansion from the rest of the buildings, and a new 
plank fence supplies the place, in part, of the old pickets that 
once enclosed the quadrangle; we value the whole at $100. 

BUILDINGS OUTSIDE THE FORT. 

17th. An old stable, but in use, with cart sheds, &c, around 
it; value $600. 

18th. Slaughter-house on the right bank of the stream 32 
by 60 feet, and ten feet high, framed, and the walls of round 
timber let into the posts in the usual way, with its appurte- 
nances ; worth $500. 

19th. A large old barn north of the stream, its posts 
rotten and ties giving way, materials worth $150. 

20th. A sheep-shed, new and servicable, 70 by 107 feet, 
roof of split boards, supported by posts in the ground; worth 
$600. 

21st. Six small buildings occupied by farm laborers, the 
whole worth $350. 

22d. Duck and goose house, and appurtenances, worth 
$150. 

23d. Cow-shed and pig-sty, with their appurtenances, 
worth $250. 

Recapitulation and estimate of value of the Nisqually farm. 
Land about twenty-seven acres, reclaimed 

swamp, worth $25 per acre - $675.00 

820 acres, average land at ninety cents - - 738.00 

Buildings - " - - - - - - 9,500.00 

Fencing, of the value of - - - 1,500.00 



Aggregate value - - - - $12,413.00 



To place a just estimate upon the value of unimproved 
lands in the vicinity of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Com- 
3 P 



18 

pany's farm at Nisqually, has been the most difficult and 
delicate duty imposed upon the board of experts; not only 
from the peculiar character of the natural surface of the 
country, but its possible and probable development in the 
future. The surface has evidently been swept by a mighty 
flood, which has carried away soil and subsoil, if there were 
any, and left the polished stones, common to the bed of a 
rapid river, many feet in depth; except upon a narrow beach 
overlooking the sound at Steilacoom, seventy or one hundred 
feet below the common surface of the country, we saw no 
subsoil which would retain the manures necessary to sustain 
continued cultivation. The shingly plains may once have 
had a light covering of grass, but now the pernicious sorrel 
in many places occupies its place. Cultivation is now prin- 
cipally confined to the alluvions along the streams and 
marshes reclaimed by drainage. These constitute but a 
small proportion to the whole surface, and from the great 
labor and expense of removing the heavy growth of timber 
that covers the bottoms, and ditching and draining marshes 
to prepare them for the plough, perhaps a moiety of these, 
the only lands fit for cultivation, remain vacant. By exami- 
nation of the records at the clerk's office at Steilacoom, it 
will be found that, except the assessment of the Puget's 
Sound Agricultural Company's claim, in 1859, land is rated 
at $1.25 an acre. That in 1859 the Puget's Sound Agricul- 
tural Company's claim of 161,000 acres, including improve- 
ments, was assessed at $1.00 per acre, and since that time at 
$1.25 per acre, the levies upon which it has refused to pay. 

We do not, therefore, put a higher value upon the land 
embraced within the claim of the Puget's Sound Agricultu- 
tural Company, exclusive of improvements, than attaches to 
vacant land of like character in its vicinity, say one dollar 
and a quarter currency, or ninety cents gold coin per acre, 
all which we respectfully submit. 

J. L. KlNEARSON, 

J. C. Carson, 
Jesse Applegate. 



19 

Subscribed and sworn to before rrie this 23d day of August, 

A. D. 1866. - I W .-* 

J. M. Bacon, 

County Clerk of Clackamas County,. Oregon. 

(The foregoing report is objected to, because it is incom- 
petent, immaterial, and irrelevant, and contains statements 
not pertinent to the issue; it is, therefore, objected to as a 
whole, because no opportunity has been given to interpose 
objections to clauses or portions thereof.) 

Int. 6. — Was the warehouse at the landing on the Sound, 
of which you speak in your foregoing statement, occupied 
or used by the Company, so far as you know ? 

Ans. — Yes; though I saw nothing in it but hay; but Mr. 
Huggins in charge of it, told me he used it in receiving goods. 

Cross-examination by the Company's Counsel. 

Int. 1. — From where did you start to view the lands of -the 
Company in Washington Territory ? 

Ans. — From Yoncalla, Douglas county, Oregon. 

Int. 2. — When did you leave Portland to make this ex- 
amination, and how did you travel ? 

Ans. — I left Portland on Saturday, August 11th, I think; 
I traveled by steam to Monticello, on the Cowlitz, and 
arrived the same day at Monticello ; I left the same evening 
for, and arrived at Cowlitz farm on the following day, I 
think, about nine or ten o'clock, a. m. 

Int. 3. — What examination did you make at the Cowlitz 
farm, and what length of time were you making that exami- 
nation ? 

Ans. — We were examining the premises from the time 
we arrived until we left in the evening of Monday ; did not 
make any examination after dinner ; what we did at Cowlitz 
farm,* I have already testified to. 

Int. 4. — Did you examine any part of the Company's 
claim called the Cowlitz Farm, except the enclosure in the 
possession of Geo. B. Roberts ? If so, state what part of it 
was examined by you. 



20 

Arts. — The critical examination upon which we report, was 
the farm claimed by Mr. Roberts as being in the possession 
of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company; any further 
examination was such as was given to lands in its vicinity. 

Int. 5. — What lands in the vicinity and upon the claim, 
except the one referred to, did you examine at all ? 

Arts. — We passed over nearly all the prairie upon which 
the farm of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company is 
located : we made a regular survey of the farm of 166 acres. 

Int. 6. — Did you pass over the prairie to the eastward of 
Mr. Roberts's possession 1 

Arts. — I did. 

Int. 7. — How far ? 

Ans. — I am not able to say the exact distance ; it was only 
a short distance. 

Int. 8.— Was it a mile ? 

Ans. — No. 

Int. 9. — Did you go half a mile ? 

Ans.— I went sufficiently far to satisfy myself of the quality 
of the soil, having no further occasion to go in that direction. 

Int. 10. — Was the distance you traveled in that direction 
a quarter of a mile ? 

Ans.— I do not think it necessary to make farther answer. 

Int. 11.— Do you decline to state your opinion of the dis- 
tance you did travel to the eastward of Mr. Roberts's. 

Ans. — I have already declined. 

Int. 12.— What examination did you make, if any, of the 
Company's claim westward of Mr. Roberts's possession ? 

Ans.— I know of no claim westward, eastward, north, or 
south, officially. 

Int. 13.— What do you mean by stating that you know of 
no claim in either direction- from Mr. Roberts's possessions 
officially ? 

Ans.— I only could know of Mr. Roberts's claim from his 
own showing. 

Int. 14.— What do you mean by saying that you know of 
Mr. Roberts's claim officially ? 

Ans.— That myself and colleagues were sent to ascertain 



21 

the condition and present value of the Puget's Sound Agri- 
cultural Company's claim, on Cowlitz, having no authority 
to examine or report upon an}^thing beyond those actual im- 
provements. Our examinations, outside of those, were made 
to ascertain or assist us in ascertaining the value of the lands 
included within or by those improvements. 

Int. 15. — Were you instructed by Attorney Johnson to ex- 
amine and report the value of those improvements and prem- 
ises only, that at the time of making such examination, were 
in the actual possession of the Company ? 

Arts. — I will not say certainly in reference to that special 
direction from Mr. Johnson, but as the report will show, it 
refers only to the present time. 

Int. 16. — Do you mean to be understood that you were in- 
structed by Attorney Johnson, or that you understood his 
instructions to be, to examine and report simply upon that 
part of the Company's claim and improvements, possessed 
and occupied by them at the time of making the examina- 
tion ? 

Ans. — I understood my instructions to be, to examine the 
property in the possession of the Company; farms, build- 
ings, &c, and make a just estimate of their value; I also 
understood my instructions to be, by an examination of the 
soil, the official records in the vicinity, and other legitimate 
means, to make a just estimate of the value of the farms by 
reference to the joining country. 

Int. 17. — Did Attorney Johnson intimate to you the ex- 
tent of the Company's claim ? 
. Ans. — I do not think he did. 

Int. 18. — Were you instructed to examine and report upon 
the land and farm at the Cowlitz river, known as the farm, 
consisting of 3,572 acres, more or less, as claimed in the 
Company's memorial; or were you instructed to examine 
and report upon the value of only so much of the claim as 
was held and occupied by their agent or lessee Roberts? 

Ans. — I was furnished with a copy of the Company's me- 
morial by Mr. Johnson, but understood my duty in regard 
to that to be similar to that required of me in regard to the 



22 

value of other, lands in the vicinity of their actual possessions ; 
I understood we were to examine the actual possessions par- 
ticularly, and the surrounding country generally. 

Int. 19. — Did you understand that you were authorized to 
select any particular portion of the land claimed by the 
Company, and confine your examination and report to that 
alone ? 

Arts. — I understood we were to examine the actual posses- 
sions particularly, and the surrounding country generally. 

Int. 20. — Why did you examine and report only upon 166 
acres of the land, when the Company claimed in their me- 
morial 3,500 acres and upwards? (Objected to by counsel 
of the United States, as the witness has already stated in the 
report, made a part of his deposition, that they did examine 
the whole prairie,rand because the report shows that they 
have . estimated the value of the whole, the question thus 
assuming to state that which is not the fact.) 
^_Ans.— I understood we were to examine the actual posses- 
sions particularly, and the surrounding country generally; 
by the special examination of the premises, we ascertained 
.the value of the improvements; by the general examination 
,the value of, the lands. 

InL 21. — Why did you, in your recapitulation in your re- 
.port, give the value of only 166 acres, or the value of the 
Cowlitz Farm, when the Company, in their memorial, claim 
3,500 acres and upwards. 

Ans.— We found only 166 acres enclosed land; there were 
other farms adjoining that of Mr. Roberts, of which he did 
not claim to be in possession. 

Int. 22. — Do you not know that these other farms and en- 
closures are within the limits of the Company's lands as 
claimed by them in their memorial, and that they were 
formerly used and occupied by the Company ? 

Ans.— Mr. Roberts so stated. 

Int. 23. — Did you suppose you had any authority in making 
your estimate of value of the Company's property, to drop 
from consideration all but the 166 acres specified by you in 
your report as the Cowlitz Farm ? (Objected to, as the re- 



23 

port shows that the surrounding lands were not dropped 
from consideration, but were valued at $5.00 per acre.) 

Ans. — I understood we were to examine the actual posses- 
sions particularly, and the surrounding country generally, 
and in reporting the value of that actually enclosed and un- 
disputed, we fix also the value of the land not enclosed or 
in dispute at the same price. 

Int. 24. — If you did not drop all but the 166 acres from 
consideration, why did you not include in your recapitulation 
the remainder of the claim, when you testify as to the value 
of the Cowlitz rami ? 

Ans. — We think we did include the value of the whole. 

Int. 25. — Please take the report and point out in which 
item in the recapitulation the value of more land than 166 
acres is included ? 

Ans. — The recapitulation uses the term farm, the Cowlitz 
Farm ; it mentions its area, and the value of that area, and 
its improvements, fencing, &c, ; beyond this farm, the Com- 
pany claimed to be in actual possession of no other lands. 

Int. 26. — What area does it mention ? 

Ans. — One hundred and sixty-six acres. 

Int. 27. — In the item of $830, stated in the recapitulation 
as the value of the Cowlitz Farm, is there included the value 
of more land than the 166 acres ? 

Ans. — Not if the calculation is right. 

Int. 28. — In what item of the recapitulation is the value 
of more than 166 acres of land contained ? 

Ans. — The recapitulation does not pretend to give the 
value, or rather the estimate of it as an item, of more land 
than the farm contains. 

Int. 29. — Do you. mean to testify that the Cowlitz Farm 
only embraces 166 acres? 

Ans. — No. 

Int. 30. — If the farm embraces more than 166 acres, why 
was not its value put in the recapitulation? 

Ans. — I have not testified that it did contain more. 

Int. 31- — If you were sent to estimate the value of the 
land claimed by the Company, why did you not embrace in 



24 

your recapitulation the value of the whole amount of land 
claimed in the memorial ? 

Ans. — I understood it to be our duty to ascertain the value 
of lands in actual possession of the Company, not to ascer- 
tain the boundaries or extent of their claims; such land as 
we found in actual possession, included within enclosures, we 
made an item in estimating the value of that farm or enclo- 
sure. 

Int. 32. — "Was your understanding of your duty derived 
from the instructions, or your understanding of the instruc- 
tions given to you by Attorney Johnson, before leaving to 
make this examination and report? 

Ans. — I suppose I did. 

Int. 33. — If you were not sent there to ascertain the bound- 
aries of the Company's claim, why did you in your recapitu- 
lation cut down the boundaries to 166 acres of land when the 
Company claimed upwards of 3,500 acres as the amount of 
their claim ? 

Ans. — I repeat again we had nothing to do with the bound- 
aries of the claim ; we recapitulate the value of the farm 
as an item of property. 

Int. 34. — Would not your recapitulation of the value of 
the Cowlitz Farm be more fair and correct if there were 
added thereto seventeen thousand and thirty dollars as the 
vatue of thirty-four hundred and six acres, at $5 per acre, 
claimed by the Company and omitted in the recapitulation ? 

Ans. — I do not think it would, because that quantity of 
land is not contained within the enclosures, ascertained by us. 

Int. 35. — Was not the true reason why you left out the 
amount, your belief that the Company had no right to any 
land, except what they have now enclosed and in their pos- 
session ? 

Ans. — No. 

Int. 36. — Have you not testified that the land adjoining 
the Company's enclosures was estimated by you at $5 per 
acre ? 

A?is. — Yes. 

Int. 37. — If the Company are entitled to the value of the 



25 

land which they claim, and tliis be admitted by the Com- 
mission, should not the amount of $17,030 be added, taking 
your basis of value ? 

Arts. — Doubtless, if the calculation is right. 

Int. 38. — You have testified to your official knowledge of 
some lands and your want of official knowledge of other 
lands of the Company on the Cowlitz Farm, did you regard 
yourself as being anything more than a messenger, requested 
by Mr. Johnson to examine the lands and improvements in 
question, for the purpose of being a witness? 

Ans. — What I mean by the term official is simply the ob- 
servance of instructions given to me by Mr. Johnson. I am 
here as a witness, and was notified I would be called. 

Int. 39. — Having been sent by Mr. Johnson to make this 
examination for the purpose of testifying in this case, what 
was your reason for departing from the usual course and 
submitting a formal report, instead of coming upon the 
stand and testifying as to your knowledge in the premises, 
as witnesses ordinarily appear and testify? 

Ans. — I was one of three persons sent by Mr. Johnson, 
and requested to report to him. 

Int. 40. — Were you upon the tract of land, situated upon the 
Company's claim, at present occupied by Jackson Barton, and 
what examination, if any, did you make of these premises ? 

Ans. — I did not inquire after the names of the squatters, 
those, I learned, were mentioned to me incidentally by Mr. 
Roberts ; I know nothing about Mr. Barton. 

Int. 41. — Do you know anything about the lands occupied 
by any of the squatters, situated upon the tract of land 
called the Cowlitz Farm ? 

Ans. — If the question refers to the quality of the lands, I 
answer in the affirmative. 

Int. 42. — How many squatters' claims did you walk over 
and examine ? 

Ans. — None. 

Int. 43. — If you neither walked over or examined any of 
the squatters' claims, how can you testify as to the quality of 
their soil? 



26 

J.ws.— If the question is in relation to the quality of the soil, 
it has been more than once answered already; if it relates to 
the squatter's title claim, I again answer in the negative. 

Int. 44. — If you made no examination of the soil of the 
lands occupied by the squatters upon this claim, in what 
way do you derive information that enables you to testify to 
the quality of the soil ? 

Ans. — I have already testified to having made such exami- 
nation. 

Int. 45. — Did you ever see this tract of land before you 
examined it for the purpose of making this report ? 

Ans. — I did not. 

Int. 46. — Do you know what proportion of the Cowlitz 
Farm, as claimed by the Company in their memorial, is tim- 
ber land ? 

Ans.-. — I do not know anything about the proportion. 

Int. 47. — Did you examine any of the timber land upon 
the Company's claim ? 

Ans. — I examined timber land in the vicinity, but do not 
know whether on the Company's claim or not. 

Int. 48.- — Do you mean to testify that you went over to 
examine and report upon the value upon the Company's 
claim and improvements, called the Cowlitz Farm, and re- 
turned without knowing the extent and boundary of their 
claim or its value, except the 166 acres specified in your re- 
capitulation ? 

Ans. — I understood it to be our duty to ascertain the value 
of lands in actual possession of the Company, not to ascer- 
tain the boundaries or extent of their claims. , In estimating 
a farm, such value to the land is made an item in the re- 
capitulation of its value. We were to ascertain, by means we 
were directed to use, the" value of adjoining land or lands in 
the vicinity, not the names or titles of the occupants. 

Int. 49. — Upon your arrival at Cowlitz Farm, did you not 
meet Edward Huggins, one of the Company's agents, who, 
by himself or with Mr. .Roberts, proposed to show you and 
the gentlemen accompanying you, over the lands there 
claimed by the Company in their memorial ? 



"■"27 

Ans. — I met a gentleman by the name of Huggins there 
at, the Cowlitz Farm, and I think such a proposition was 
made by him or Mr. Roberts ; I do not remember by which 
one, perhaps, by both, and declined for the reason already 
stated in this examination. 

Int. 50. — Did you not state to Mr. Huggins that you came 
there to examine the present possessions of the Company at 
that place, and that you did not care to be shown or to see 
the lands formerly claimed or occupied by the Company, or 
words to that effect ? 

Ans. — As we did not consider ourselves upon any secret 
service, and I do not, at the present moment, remember any 
special time or occasion upon which such conversation was 
had, I have no doubt myself and companions told Mr. 
Huggins what we considered our duty to do and not to do, 
as I have through this blessed day of our Lord attempted to 
explain to this honorable Commission. 

Int. 51. — Is not the land claimed by the Company, called 
the Cowlitz Farm, of a quality similar to that on which John 
E. Jackson now resides, situate about six miles north of the 
Company's land, and on the road leading from Cowlitz Land- 
ing to Olympia? 

Ans. — That is a question upon which the experts have not 
consulted, about the relative quality of the two places. My 
answer must, therefore, be that of an individual ; of course 
of less weight than the concurrent opinion of three. The 
farm of Mr. Jackson is a very handsome one, in a high state 
of cultivation; it has upon it a good orchard, a beautiful 
garden of flowers and shrubbery, excellent water, a capacious 
if not regular [illegible ; ] some shade trees, and other 
ornaments around it; among some other things some grape 
vines, which in that high northern latitude seem to be more 
for show than use. His farm seems abundantly stocked 
with horses, cattle, sheep, and pigs; it has also good barns and 
other out-buildings ; and though further removed from the 
Cowlitz landing than the land now in possession of the Pu- 
get's Sound Agricultural Company, in view of the better 
condition of the land and its other advantages, being on the 



28 

public road; I think it would rate with most purchasers, acre 
for acre, equal to the Cowlitz Farm. I have in my posses- 
sion an affidavit, duly executed before a notary, of the price 
paid by Mr. Jackson for a tract of land, partly prairie and 
partly timber, which he has lately purchased and added to 
his farm. 

Int. 52. — I did not ask you for any conclusions of exami- 
nations of experts, neither did I ask you to describe the 
beauties of John E. Jackson's farm, but I did ask you if the 
soil of Cowlitz Farm and the farm of John R. Jackson were 
of similar quality. Will you please to answer whether the 
soil of these two tracts of land is of similar quality or not ? 

Ans. — I think the soil of the Cowlitz prairie has been su- 
perior in quality to*the Jackson farm. I do not think at 
present the Cowlitz prairie is as productive as the Jackson 
farm. 

Int. 53. — Did you examine any of the springs situated 
upon or any of the streams running through the Cowlitz 
Farm ? 

Ans. — There is no stream that I remember running through 
the Cowlitz Farm as surveyed by us ; I saw no springs. 

Int. 54. — Did you examine any of the springs situated 
upon or streams running through the lands of the Company, 
as claimed by them in their memorial? 

Ans. — I cannot answer as to that fact. 

Int. 55. — Did you examine a mill-site or privilege situate 
upon this claim, upon one of the water-courses running 
through it, and upon which was a saw-mill, formerly erected 
by the Company ? 

Ans. — I cannot answer; I saw some water-courses running 
through the Cowlitz prairie, and was told a mill had been 
on one of them; I cannot answer it was on the land claimed 
by the Company or not, not having ascertained the bound- 
aries. 

Int. 56. — State the amount of pasture lands, and land un- 
der cultivation, between the mouth of the Cowlitz river and 
Cowlitz Farm. 

Ans. — We landed at a little town or place* called Monti- 



29 

cello, about four miles, as we were informed, above the 
mouth of the river. The farms above that point only were 
seen by us; four or five miles, perhaps, that the road follows 
the river; the land is mostly in cultivation, either in grass 
or grain ; from that point the road leaves the river, taking 
up a side stream, upon which there are a few good farms. 
Mr. Jackson's is the first and Mr. Humphrey's the second 
stage stations ; they are the best, I think. We staid with 
Mr. Humphrey, and went over and examined his farm and 
improvements ; we examined critically no other points be- 
tween. I cannot answer as to the number of acres in culti- 
vation. 

Int. 57. — Between the two points designated in the last 
interrogatory, are the lands, suitable for cultivation or valu- 
able for pasturage, generally occupied by settlers ? 

Ans. — Above the point where the wood leaves the Cow- 
litz river, but a small proportion of the lands suitable for 
agricultural purposes are occupied by settlers, for the reason 
of the great expense and labor necessary to prepare them for 
agricultural purposes, the best lands being either heavily 
timbered, or mostly requiring drainage; from the beginning 
of the open country, known as the Cowlitz prairie, the 
country is generally in cultivation. 

Int. 58. — What distance is it from the mouth of the Cow- 
litz river to the point where you struck what you term the 
Cowlitz prairie? 

Ans. — The distance is called thirty miles from Monticello; 
I do not know what point in the prairie is the terminus or 
place reckoned from. 

Int. 59. — Is not the character of the country, and the ex- 
pense of transportation, such as to render it improbable that 
any of the products of the cultivated lands lying between the 
Cowlitz prairie and the mouth of the Cowlitz river would 
ever be taken in the direction cf the Cowlitz Farm for a 
market ? 

Ans. — That would depend upon the value of the market, 
or price paid for the produce of the farms at Cowlitz. 
.Int. 60. — Is not now, and has not since the settlement 



30 

of that section of -country referred to in the last interroga- 
tion, Monticello and Portland, been the market for products 
from that portion of the country ? 

Ans. — I suppose it has. 

Int. 61. — Is not the character of the ground and the ex- 
pense of transportation such as to render it improbable that 
the productstof the lands referred to in the last interrogation 
will ever seek a market in the direction of the Cowlitz Farm ? 

Ans. — Upon that question I could only give an opinion ; at 
present the farm productions are most easily transported to 
the Columbia river. 

Int. 62. — What, in your judgment, would be a fair yearly 
yield of wheat, oats, barley, hay, and potatoes, on the Cow- 
litz Farm, if properly conducted? 

Ans. — I think about twenty bushels of wheat, forty of oats, 
barley — I never cultivated barley ; about one hundred or 
one hundred and fifty bushels of potatoes; hay would be on 
an average one and a-half tons. 

Int. 63. — Do you know what was the condition of the 
Company's farm at Cowlitz when you came to Oregon in 
1843, and subsequent year ? 

Ans. — ISTo. 

Int. 64. — From the edge of Cowlitz prairie, where you 
first came out of the timber, in coming from Monticello, 
through to the end of your journey at Steilacoom on Puget's 
Sound, did you see a single one hundred pounds of hay of 
the crop of previous years ? 

Ans. — j^o. 

Int. 65. — Did all the pasture lands between the same points 
have the appearance of being stocked and grazed to their 
full capacity ? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int. 66. — Does the country between those points present 
the appearance of being over-stocked, and grazed beyond 
their capacity ? 

Ans. — From the appearance of the animals observed, it 
was not. 

Int. 67. — Answer the last interrogatory from your obser-. 



31 

vations of the pasture lands along the line of road traveled 
by you. 

Arts.— It was not. 

Int. 68. — How much prairie land, adapted to the purposes 
of agriculture and valuable for pasturage, lies between the 
edge of the timber, coming from Monticello, where you 
struck what you term Cowlitz prairie, and the Company's 
claim called the Nisqually Farm, in Pierce county ? 

Ans. — I do not know how much. 

Int. 69. — Give your judgment of the amount of the de- 
scriptions of lands designated in the last interrogatory, lying 
between the points designated. 

Ans. — From what I saw of the country, I think about one- 
half of the country is prairie. 

Int. 70. — Are you not aware that the lands lying west of 
the Cascade range of mountains, or the lands generally of 
Puget's Sound, north of the Company's claim, or Nisqually, 
are densely timbered lands ? 

■ Ans. — No. 

Int. 71. — Have you any acquaintance with the lands desig- 
nated in the last interrogatory ? 

Ans. — No. 

Int. 72. — Are you not aware that the entire amount of 
agricultural lands and pasture lands lying in Washington 
Territory, north of the Cowlitz river, are inadequate to sup- 
ply the demands for pasture lands, and agricultural products 
of the markets of Puget*s Sound, Vancouver's Island, and 
British Columbia; and do you not know that large amounts 
of agricultural products and large quantities of live stock 
have yearly, for a long time, from Oregon, sought a sale in 
those markets ? 

Ans. — To the first clause of the question, No; to the 
second, Yes. From my observations upon the country, when 
the lands embraced in the question is put into a proper state 
of cultivation, it will produce large amounts of agricultural 
productions ; whether enough to supply the demands of the 
markets named, I cannot say. At present, cattle and sheep 
dealers for the Victoria markets purchase stock from me, in 



32 

the Umpqua Valley, southern Oregon; and I also learned 
from the proprietor of the nouring-mill at Turn- Water, Pu- 
get's Sound, that he imports his wheat from California. 

Int. 73. — Since the discovery of the mines in British Co- 
lumbia, in 1858, has there not been large numbers of cattle, 
horses, sheep, and swine yearly purchased in Oregon, to sup- 
ply the markets referred to in the last interrogatory ? 

Ans. — From information, I answer this question in the 
affirmative, and that the trade is likely to continue. 

Int. 74. — How is this stock taken from Oregon to these 
several markets? 

Ans. — From information I answer this question, that the 
stock designed for Victoria markets are taken by the way of 
the Cowlitz to Puget's Sound, from there shipped; those 
for British Columbia, by the way of the Columbia river. By 
the Victoria markets, I mean to include the other markets 
in British America, most convenient to that point. 

Int. 75. — Is not all that part of British Columbia, lying 
west of the Cascade Mountains, principally supplied with 
their meats and live-stock by the way of Puget's Sound and 
Victoria ? 

Ans. — I presume, so. 

Int. 76. — State, from your knowledge and information, the 
best point of shipment from Puget's Sound of the live-stock 
and meats required to supply these markets. 

Ans. — I visited but two of the towns on Puget's Sound, 
Olympia and Steilacoorn; my personal impressions accord 
with the information received from others, that the latter 
place is best adapted for the carrying on of a large com- 
merce. 

Int. 78. — Are not the prairie lands valuable for agricul- 
tural purposes and pasturage, in the vicinity and for a long 
distance around Olympia, occupied by settlers? 

Ans. — Yes, so far as my examinations of the country ex- 
tended. 

Int. 84. — Does not all the live-stock driven from Oregon, 
to supply the markets referred to in the foregoing interrog- 
atory, require rest and pasturage or forage in the vicinity of 



33 

the point of shipment, on Puget's Sound, before being 
shipped ? 

Ans. — I cannot say that all live stock requires such rest or 
forage, but two large enclosures on the prairie, near Steila- 
coom, were pointed out to me as being used by cattle deal- 
ers for those purposes. 

Int. 79. — Do you not know that stock dealers, driving 
stock from Oregon to supply these markets, drive them in 
large numbers, to make it profitable ? 

Ans.. — Yes. 

Int. 80. — Do you not know that only a part of such droves 
of cattle taken to the vicinity of the point of shipment are 
shipped at a time to their markets, and that the remainder 
are left for weeks and months at a time upon the pasture 
lands in this vicinity before being shipped ? 

Ans. — I have been so informed by the cattle dealers. 

Int. 81.— Did you examine the Company's claim called the 
Nisqually Farm, lying in Peirce county ? If so, state to 
what extent, and what length of time you were engaged in 
making such examination; I mean the tract of land at Ms- 
qually, extending along the shores of Puget's Sound from 
the Nisqually river on the one side, to the Puyallup river on 
the other, and back to the Coast Range of mountains, con- 
taining some 261 square miles, or 167,040 acres? 

Ans. — -I did not examine a tract of the magnitude named, 
in your question ; with my colleagues, I examined a farm in 
the possession of Edward Huggins, accredited to us as the 
agent of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, the re- 
sult of which is contained in the report submitted by us. 
Our personal examinations were in the vicinity of the farm, 
extending north no further than the town of Steilacoom. 

Int. 82. — What were you sent to Nisqually to examine and 
report on ? 

Ans. — I understood we were to examine the actual pos- 
sessions particularly, and the surrounding country generally. 
Int. 83. — How many acres of the Company's claim at JN"is- 
qually did you examine ? 

Ans. — Particularly, about 847 acres. 
4 P 



34 

Int. 84. — How many acres did you examine generally ? 

Ans. — As I before said, personally, such only as passed un- 
der our own observation in examining the vicinity of the 
farm, going to and from the town of Steilacoom by different 
routes, and to and from the farm itself. 

Int. 85. — Give your judgment of the number of acres you 
examined generally. 

Ans. — Our examination did not extend to the ascertain- 
ment of quantities, but to the general character of the coun- 
try. 

Int. 86. — What was the distance travelled by you in going 
from Mr. Huggins's to Steilacoom? 

Ans. — I think, by the route, seven or eight miles. 

Int. 87. — How did you travel, and did you travel rapidly ? 

Ans. — We travelled in a buggy ; in places we travelled 
rapidly, in others, slowly. 

Int. 88. — What length of time did it take you to drive 
from Mr. Huggins's to Steilacoom ? 

Ans. — I did not observe the time, but think about two 
hours. 

Int. 89. — From the time you left Steilacoom, until you got 
to Mr. Huggins's on your return, did you get out of your car- 
riage to make any examination of the soil ? 

Ans. — No. 

Int. 90. — Did you walk over any of the lands of the Com- 
pany and make any examination of the soil, except the en- 
closure surveyed by you, and the lands in the immediate 
vicinity of those enclosures ? 

Ans. — I walked over and examined some lands in the 
vicinity of Steilacoom. 

Int. 91. — Did you examine any of the lands in the vicinity 
of Steilacoom, except small quantities upon the town-site ? 

Ans. — My examination was not extensive ; I do not know 
the limits of the town-site. 

Int. 92. — How far back from the waters of Puget's Sound, 
in the vicinity of Steilacoom, did you examine any lands? 

Ans. — About three hundred yards, according to my best 
information. 



35 ♦ 

Int. 93. — What extent of frontage on the Sound did you 
examine the land in the vicinity of Steilacoom ? 

Arts. — According to my best information, it was about a 
quarter of a mile. 

Int. 94. — Is the land in the vicinity of Steilacoom, exam- 
ined by you, the only land of the Company at Nisqually 
that you did examine, except that walked over and surveyed 
by you and referred to in the 96th [90th] interrogation ? 

Ans. — "We examined the land at Nisqually river, and gen- 
erally of every part of the country through which we trav- 
elled, with sufficient accuracy to determine its quality and 
character, and in connection with other sources of informa- 
tion, to enable us to form a general estimate of thevalue of 
the country. These examinations did not require any par- 
ticular mode of locomotion. 

Int. 95.— What number of acres of land did you walk 
over at Msqually river, and examine ? 

Ans. — I walked but a short distance at the Ni squally river, 
and then not specially to examine the land, all the observa- 
tions necessary to enable us to determine the quality of lands 
beiug as easily made from the seat of a carriage as by walk- 
ing over it, when the quality of like lands, as indicated by 
the growth of crops, timber, &c, and depth of soil has been 
ascertained. 

Int. 96. — How long a time were you engaged at the Ms- 
qually river in making an examination of the soil? 

Ans. — We made no halt at Nisqually, specially, for that 
purpose. 

Int. 97. — How long a time were you at Msqually river 
for any purpose ? 

Ans. — I cannot say; we made but a short halt going and 
coming. 

Int. 98. — What distance is it from Msqually river to Mr. 
Huggins's, and what part of that distance is prairie ? 

Ans. — About four miles, and about three miles prairie. 

Int. 99. — Did you get out of your carriage to make any 
examination of the soil between Msqually river and Mr. 
Huggins's ? 

Ans. — ~Eo. 



36 

Int. 100.— What amount of time were you actually en- 
gaged in making your examination of the Company's lands 
at Nisqually ? 

Ans. — We were north of the Nisqually river from the 14th 
day of August, in the evening, until the evening of the 16th, 
most of the time being spent in the prosecution of our mis- 
sion. 

Int. 101. — How much of the time spent by you north of 
the Msqually river, were you engaged in making a survey 
of the 847 acres, particularly examined by you, and in examin- 
ing the improvements thereon ? 

Ans. — A day, except so much of the morning as was 
necessary to examine the warehouse at the Sound. 

Int. 102. — Was not the balance of your time spent north 
of the Nisqually river taken up in your trip going to Steila- 
coom, at Steilacoom, and returning ? 

Ans.-— It was so. 

Int. 103. — How far back from the shore of the Puget's 
Sound did your examination of the Company's land extend? 

Ans. — About two miles. 

Int. 104. — Was not the soil examined by you at Nisqually 
river fertile, well adapted to the growth of garden and other 
vegetables, and is it not very valuable for agricultural pur- 
poses generally. 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int. 105. — What is the quality of the soil examined by you 
at Steilacoom ? 

Ans. — Land, I think, of great fertility. 

Int. 106. — How far back from the shore of the Sound does 
this description of land extend ? 

Ans. — My examination extended, according to my best 
information, about three hundred yards. 

Int. 107. — Did you examine the lands of the Muck valley, 
running through the Company's claim, or the mill-site, situ- 
ated near the mouth of the Muck stream, where it enters 
into the Nisqually river ? 

Ans. — I did not ; my information respecting that valley 
was derived from Mr. Huggins. 



37 

Int. 108.— Did you examine the lands or farms lying upon 
Mourey's Creek, or Talentyre's Creek, situated in the eastern 
and central portion of the Company's claim at Nisqually ? 

Ans. — For information respecting other portions of the 
country not passed over by the Commission, they depended 
upon information derived from Mr. Huggins and other relia- 
ble sources. 

Int. 109. — Did you ever see [the] lands of the Company at 
Msqually, before you saw them with those other gentlemen, 
sent by Mr. Johnson to examine them ? 

Ans. — !N"o. 

Int. 110. — Is not the soil of Nisqually Plains a black vege- 
table mold, mixed in very varying quantities with gravel in 
some parts, and sand in others, and from one to several feet 
deep. 

Ans. — The lands in the vicinity of the Sound, properly 
termed plains, have upon them very little soil, not enough 
except in basins or depressions to support continued culti- 
vation. 

Int. 111. — Do you know anything, of \our own knowl- 
edge, of any part of the Company's lands at Msqually, ex> 
cept what was passed over and examined by you during the 
two days thus spent ? 

Ans. — I do not. 

Int. 112. — Did you not observe that the soil of the Second 
and Third Plains", passed through by you in going from Mr. 
Iluggins's to Nisqually bridge, were composed of a black 
vegetable mold, mixed with sand, without any gravel ? 

Ans. — I observed the difference of soil, but cannot say 
there was no gravel. 

o 

Int. 113. — Did Mr. Huggins, the agent of the Company at 
E"isqually, express a desire to show you over the entire tract 
of the land claimed by the Company at that place ? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int. 114. — Why did you not make a further examination 
of this claim ? 

Ans. — Because we did not deem a further actual examina- 



38 

tion of the country necessary to enable us to report the facts 
we were sent to Nisqually to collect. 

Int. 115. — Did you make all the examination of the Com- 
pany's claim at Xisqually that you were required to make 
under the instructions of Mr. Johnson ? 

Ans. — As we understood them, we did. 

Int. 116. — What was the condition of the live-stock on the 
Nisqually Plains ? 

Ans. — In good condition. 

Int.^ 117. — How can you give a correct valuation of the 
whole of the Company's claims at E"isqually, from personal 
knowledge, when you only carefully examined less than the 
one hundredth and sixtieth part of it, according to your 
report ? 

Ans. — We did not claim to do so from personal knowl- 
edge. 

Int. 118. — Is, then, the valuation placed upon the entire 
claim, one that should, or of right, ought to have the weight 
of sworn testimony with those whose province it is to con- 
sider the value of the Company's claim ? 

Ans. — It is not my province to pass upon the value of my 
own and my colleagues' evidence. 

Int. 119. — Do you know what has been the price of beef, 
mutton, and pork in the markets of Puget's Sound, Victo- 
ria, and British Columbia, from 1858, during the different 
years, up to the present date ? 

Ans. — I do not. 

Int. 120. — Would not the knowledge of the prices of beef 
cattle, sheep, and other live stock, also of the prices of the 
agricultural products produced by this tract of land, in the 
different markets at which they were offered for sale, have 
enabled you to form a much more correct and satisfactory 
estimate of the value of these lands, both at Cowlitz and 
Nisqually, than you now can form? 

Ans. — The value of land is everywhere governed by its 
appreciation in its own locality, and a stranger, by any pro- 
cess of reasoning or calculation, cannot change its money 
value in the market. 



39 

Int. 121. — Has any part of the land, embraced within the 
limits of the Company's claim at Nisqually, in your opinion, 
ever been in market, or so situated that any person could get 
a clear title to land, or can such be the case until the claim 
of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company to the same is 
extinguished ? 

Arts. — There are a number of deeds of conveyance on 
record in the clerk's office at Steilacoom, which, Mr. Hug- 
gins informed me, were within the limits of the claim of the 
Company; upon the right of the seller to convey, I cannot 
answer. 

Int. 122.— In your report you state that you made an ex- 
amination of the records of Pierce county; what length of 
time were you engaged in making that examination ? 

Ans. — I did not observe the time, but long enough to 
make such extracts from the records as were deemed perti- 
nent to the objects of our mission. 

Int. 123. — Were you one hour in making the examina- 
tion ? 

Ans. — I cannot say, but not exceeding that time. 

Int. 124. — Did any of the persons making sales of estate 
upon this claim, convey any title, or was it simply the right 
of possession and the improvements, the possession of the 
person making such conveyance ? 

Ans. — They were deeds conveying lands, naming the quan- 
tities and boundaries of the tracts, in all respects similar to 
such instruments conveying absolute title, except they were 
quit-claim deeds, not warrantee deeds. 

Int. 125. — Were-you the claimant of 161,000 acres of land, 
and that claim with the value of the lands was left to be de- 
termined by referees, would you be willing that the value of 
such tract of land should be determined by the arbitrators, 
by the testimony of one or more men, none of whom had 
seen the hundredth and sixtieth part of the land ? 

Ans. — My willingness or unwillingness would depend upon 
the valuation put upon it. 



40 



Direct Examination Resumed. 

Int. 1. — What did Mr. Huggins tell you had become of 
the two farms of the Company on the Muck? (Objected 
to as hearsay, and as immaterial and irrelevant, and also be- 
cause it is leading,) 

Ans. — Mr. Huggins informed me the Muck farms were 
placed in the hands of servants of the Company, who trans- 
ferred them to other parties without the Company's au- 
thority. One claim transferred for, I believe, $500 for 640 
acres. Of the Muck farms there was no records of the trans- 
fers. 

Int. 2. — When you say in your answer to the 48th [42d] 
cross-interrogatory that you did not walk over and examine 
any of the squatters' claims at the Cowlitz Farm, do you mean 
to say that you did not, in any mode, examine such lands as 
were there, occupied without the enclosures of the Company? 
Explain what you did mean by such answer. 

Ans. — I make a distinction between the examination of 
land, and the title or claim under which the land is held. I 
examined none of the claims of any one to land in Cowlitz 
prairie, but did examine the land. 

Int. 3. — Please state what were your instructions as given 
by the attorney for the United States? (Objected to, as 
immaterial, incompetent, and irrelevant.) 

Ans. — Our instructions were in writing, and were as fol- 
lows : 

" Portland, August 9, 1866. 
" Gentlemen: 

" Referring to my former instructions to you, I extend 
them now to the stations of the Hudson's Bay Company at 
Vancouver, and of the Puget's Sound Company at Cowlitz 
and Nisqually. You are furnished with a copy of the Com- 
pany's memorial, and it is only necessary to say thai yoc are 
desired to examine the property claimed by them at these 
points. 



41 

"Expressing my great satisfaction with your proceedings 
thus far, 

I am, yours, respectfully, 

" Wm. Caky Johnson, 

" Attorney for the United States. 

" Messrs, Jesse Applegate, 
J. S. 5 INEARS0N > 
J. C. Carson." 

Int. 4. — What were the former instructions referred to in 
the foregoing copy? (Objected to the same as before.) 
Am.— They were as follows, to wit : 

" British and American Joint Commission, 

on H. B. and P. S. A. Cs\ Claims. 

" Oregon City, July 17, 1866. 
" Gentlemen : 

" You are constituted a Board of Experts for the exami- 
nation of the lands and buildings at the more important 
posts claimed by the Hudson's Bay and Puget's Sound Agri- 
cultural Companies, and for which they demand compen- 
sation. Having accepted this duty, my instructions to you 
are as follows: 

"1st. You will proceed as expeditiously as possible to 
Fort Colvile, in Washington Territory, and mark out, as 
nearly as may be, a square mile of land, making the build- 
ings of the Company the middle point on the Company's 
[? Columbia] river. 

" 2d. You will examine the buildings and improvements 
of the Company at that place, together with the land, with 
sufficient care to give a just estimate of their actual present 
value in gold coin, and also, so that you can give a tolerably 
accurate statement, if I shall hereafter desire, of the manner 
of their construction, the amount of fencing, &c. 

" 3d. You will examine and measure in the same manner 
what is known as the White Mud Farm, some twelve miles 



42 

from Fort Colvile, making the ancient improvements of the 
Company the centre of the square mile of land. 

" 4th. Observe generally, as you can, the character of the 
country around Fort Colvile, within four or five miles up 
and down the river, so as to give some estimate of its value 
per acre. In this connection, I respectfully suggest the 
propriety of examining the assessment rolls of the county, 
which will assist you in estimating the value of property, 
and you can avail yourselves of all the ordinary modes of 
acquiring a knowledge of these values, including inquiry 
from residents at that point. 

" 5th. Your attention is also called to the grist-mill and 
water-power, used by the Company, a few miles above the 
fort. 

" 6th. On your way down the river you will make a like 
examination and survey of the Old Fort "Walla- Walla, now 
called Wallula, making the small stream below the fort the 
lower line of the land. Upon your return as far down the 
river as Vancouver I will join you, and your proceeding 
thereafter will be under my verbal instructions, until the 
completion of the work. Such notes of distances, amounts, 
nature and character of soil, improvements and buildings 
&c, as will enable you to make a written report (if called 
upon) you will see the propriety of preserving. Jesse Apple- 
gate, Esq., will be furnished with means to pay the expenses 
of your transportation and subsistence, of which he will 
keep an accurate account. 

" Wishing you a pleasant and prosperous journey, 

" I am, gentlemen, yours, very respectfully, 

" W. C. Johnson, 
" Attorney and Agent for the United States. 
Messrs. Jesse Applegate,' 

Jacob S. Bineabson, 
J. C. Carson." 



43 



Cross-examination Resumed. 

Int. 1. — What squatters' lands on the Company's claim on 
the north hank of Cowlitz river did you walk over and ex- 
amine ? * 

Ans. — I walked over the land on all sides of the farm oc- 
cupied by Mr. Roberts ; I did not inquire who claimed it. 

Int. 2. — Did you walk a half a mile in any direction from 
the enclosure occupied by Mr. Roberts ? 

Ans. — Yes ; I think I did. 

Int. 3. — In how many different directions did you walk 
half a mile from his enclosure? 
» Ans. — -I walked that distance in only one direction. 

Int. 4. — Did you walk twenty rods from his enclosure in 
any other direction than one ? 

Ans. — No ; I do not think I did. 

Int. 5. — Did you receive any other or additional instruc- 
tions, either verbal or written, from Mr. Johnson, than the 
written instructions which are copied into and made a part 
of your answer to the 134th and 135th [3d and 4th] interro- 
gation propounded in your re-examination-in-chief? 

Ans. — No. 

Int. 6. — From these instructions, then, you considered 
that you had performed your wmole duty, when you par- 
ticularly examined 166 acres of the Company's land at Cow- 
litz Farm, with their improvements, and the examination of 
their premises that you have testified to having made at Nis- 
qually ? 

Ans. — I consider the information contained in the report 
of the Board of Experts as being a fulfilment of the duties 
required of them. 

Int. 7. — Then, you do not consider your instructions in 
reference to the Company's claim, called the Cowlitz Farm, 
did require an examination by you of all of the lands within 
its boundary lines ? 

Ans. — Further than to ascertain its quality, no. 

Int. 8. — Do you now say that you made all the examina- 



44 

tion of the Company's claim at Nisqually that by your in- 
structions you were required to make ? 
A?is. — Yes. i 

Jesse Applegate. 

Oregon City, Oregon, August 24, 1866. 



Testimony of J. C. Carson. 

J. C. Carsonhe'mg first duly sworn, deposeth and says: 

Int. 1. — State your age, place of residence, and occupation. 

Ans. — My age is forty-two ; residence, Portland, Oregon ; 
occupation, carpenter and joiner, builder and contractor; 
I am also engaged in connection with that in the manufac- 
ture of windows and sash, doors and blinds, and building 
materials. 

Int. 2. — How long have you resided in Portland? 

Aus. — I have resided in Portland since 1853. 

Int. 3. — Have you lately examined the lands and improve- 
ments of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company at Cow- 
litz and Uisqually? If so, in connection with whom, and 
under whose instructions ? (The last two clauses of the in- 
terrogation objected to as irrelevant and immaterial.) 

Ans. — I have, to some extent, in connection with Jesse 
Applegate and Major J. S. BAnearson ; I left Portland for 
the Cowlitz Farm on the 11th of August, 1866, completed 
our examinations and returned to Portland on the 19th of 
of August, 1866. I was under the instructions of the Hon. 
W. C. Johnson, the Attorney for the United States. 

Int. 4. — Look at the statement or report marked " G," 
embodied in the deposition of Jesse Applegate, in this case, 
now shown you, and state what it is, and what you desire to 
have done with it in connection with your testimony? (Ob- 
jected to by the counsel for the Company as irrelevant and 
immaterial.) 

Ans. — It is the sworn statement of facts and conclusions, 
ascertained and arrived at by myself and associates ; I wish 



45 

to adopt it and make it a part of my testimony. (The coun- 
sel for the Company objects to the introduction of this re- 
port, and to its being made a part of the testimony of the 
witness, because it is informal, incompetent, and unauthor- 
ized by law. Counsel for the Company also enter their pro- 
test for this mode of examination of this witness, because 
unauthorized by law, and claim that the witness should be 
particularly inquired of in reference to all matters testified 
to by him, so that an opportunity may be given to interpose 
objections to the questions, to the questions of counsel and 
the answers of the witness, so far as the same may be incom- 
petent, irrelevant, or immaterial. Counsel for the United 
States now tenders to the attorney for the Company the 
examination of the report, so that he may now, if he desires, 
object to the whole or any part, for any of the reasons stated 
in the foregoing objection. Counsel for the Company insists 
that if the paper termed a report, is to be used in any respect 
as the testimony of this witness, that it should be written out 
in full as his evidence in this deposition, the same being neither 
an exhibit or a document capable of being introduced as such, 
butsimply the written statement of the witness and of other 
parties.) 

Int. 5. — Do you now so adopt it and make it part of your 
deposition in this case ? 

Ans. — I do. (The counsel for the Company objects to this 
report being made a part of the testimony of the witness, 
because it is incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant, and 
contains statements not pertinent to the issue; it is also ob- 
jected to as a whole, because no opportunity has been given 
to interpose objections to clauses or parts thereof, which are 
incompetent as hearsay, and for other reasons.) 

Ci'oss-examination by Company's Counsel. 

Int. 1. — You state in your examination-in-chief that you 
were one of the parties sent by Mr. Johnson to make exami- 
nation of the Company's property, at Cowlitz Farm, and at 
Kisqually, and to report to him the results of your exami- 



46 

nation. Please state the date of your leaving Portland, the 
mode of travel, time of your arrival at Cowlitz "Farm, what 
examination you there made, the time of making such ex- 
amination, when you left Cowlitz Farm, and the time en- 
gaged in traveling thence to Nisqually, what examination you 
there made of the Company's property, and the time em- 
ployed hy you in making $uch examinations. 

Ans. — I left Portland on the 11th of August, 1866, and 
traveled to Monticello, near the mouth of the Cowlitz river; 
I arrived there about noon of the same clay; from there 
traveled by land in a two-horse carriage, and arrived at Cow- 
litz Farm about noon, the 12th, which was on Sunday. In 
the afternoon of that day we rode over a portion, of the farm 
in a carriage ; we made no further examination that day. 
We commenced our survey of the enclosure about 8 o'clock 
the next day; I mean the enclosure of 166 acres referred to 
in the report. We were engaged in making a survey of this 
enclosure till about the middle of the same afternoon. The 
balance of that day we were engaged in making a survey 
and measurement of the buildings upon the tract of 166 
acres of land. The next morning we again rode over a por- 
tion of the adjoining lands. I should say our examination 
extended in two directions about a mile, and in the other 
directions but a very short distance. We started for Nis- 
qually about 10 o'clock the same day, and traveled that day 
about half way to Olympia, and arrived at Mr. Huggins's 
house, at Fort Nisqually, about seven o'clock in the evening, 
where we remained over night. On the morning of the 15th, 
about nine o'clock, we went from Mr. Huggins's to the ware- 
house on the beach, a distance of about three quarters of a 
mile. We there measured and examined the warehouse 
and another old building, and were engaged during the re- 
mainder of that day in surveying the enclosure described in 
that report of 874 acres, and surveying and measuring the 
buildings situated thereon. On the morning of the 16th, 
about eight o'clock, we left Mr. Huggins's in a two-horse 
carriage, and rode over a portion of the lands outside of the 
enclosure, and thence to Steilacoom, on about the same route 



47 

that Mr. Applegate traveled. "We were on the road from Mr. 
Huggins's to Steilacoom, about one and a quarter hours, trav- 
eling not to exceed ten miles. We remained at Steilacoom 
till about three o'clock, p. m., while there, being engaged 
a portion of the time walking over the town-site, and ex- 
amining the public records. I was not engaged in looking 
over the records not to exceed half an hour. I went up to 
the clerk's office and found Mr. Applegate there; about 
three o'clock we left Steilacoom for Mr. Huggins's, and 
arrived there in less than an hour ; we left Mr. Huggins's for 
Olympia about five o'clock, en route for Portland ; we left 
Olympia on the morning of the 17th, and traveled to John 
R.Jackson's that day; from thence on Saturday morning, 
the 18th, we went by the Cowlitz landing road through the 
Cowlitz prairie past L. Dubo's, to Monticello, where we 
arrived about six o'clock, p. m.; from there we took steamer 
and arrived at Portland on the 19th, having been absent 
eight days. 

Int. 2.- — In returning from John R. Jackson's to Monti- 
cello, do you mean to testify that you traveled over any part 
of the Cowlitz Farm ? 

Arts. — ISfot any portion now enclosed; I do not know where 
the lines of their claim extend. 

Int. 3. — Do you mean to swear then that in returning from 
John R. Jackson's to Monticello, you traveled over any part 
of the land of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, on 
the north bank of the Cowlitz river, as claimed by them in 
their memorial ? 

Ans. — I think I did travel over a portion of the land they 
claim. 

Int. 4. — What part of the claim did you travel over in 
making this trip from John R. Jackson's to Monticello ? 

Ans. — If I traveled over any portion of the claim, it was 
that in the south end of the prairie. 

Int. 5. — How near did the road traveled by you go to the 
enclosure of 166 acres mentioned in your report, and occu- 
pied by Geo. B. Roberts? 



48 

Ans. — Probably within a half a mile, but I do not know 
exactly. 

Int. 6.— "When traveling in the vicinity of the enclosure 
occupied by Mr. Roberts, did you travel from thence in the 
direction of the road referred to in the last interrogatory, 
sufficiently near so that you saw it? 
Ans. — -I certainly did, but not in a direct line. 
Int. 7. — Did you walk or ride on this crooked line de- 
scribed in your last answer ? 
Ans. — I rode. 

Int. 8. — Who accompanied you ? 

Ans. — Mr. Roberts, Mr. Applegate, and Mr. Rinearson. 
Int. 9. — Did you ride from Mr. Roberts's over a public road 
around the Mission claim, until you came to this road, or 
did you travel through fields till you came to it ? 

Ans. — We traveled through a common outside of the en- 
closure until we came into the road. 

Int. 10. — How far did you travel from Roberts's until you 
came to the road ? 

Ans. — I do not know the distance we traveled. 
Int. 11. — Can you give any idea of the distance you trav- 
eled from Roberts's to get to this road ? 

Ans. — I cannot give a correct idea how far we traveled; 
as near as I can arrive at the distance, it was from one to 
three miles in a circuitous route. 

Int. 12. — What direction did you travel from Roberts's to 
get to this road ? 

Ans. — We traveled in a circuitous route, and I cannot give 
you the directions. 

Int. 13. — Will you swear that you did not travel four 
miles from Roberts's before you saw the road ? 

Ans. — I think I did not travel four miles before we came 
into that road. 

Int. 14. — Is your idea of distance from this road to Rob- 
erts's enclosure at the nearest point, formed by your obser- 
vations upon this ride? 
Ans. — It is. 
Int. 15. — If you cannot tell whether you rode one mile or 



49 

three miles, nor in what direction yon did ride from Rob- 
erts's enclosure, how can yon say that the distance from 
Roberts's enclosure to the road is a half a mile? 

Ans. — I rode on the two opposite sides of his enclosure 
from the road. 

Int. 16.— In what direction from Roberts's enclosure do 
you swear it is but a half a mile to this road ? 

Ans. — I do not swear to any positive distance; it was on 
the south or southwest portion. 

Int. ,17.— If you do not know where the boundaries of the 
Company's claim called the Cowlitz Farm are, and do not 
know the distance from Roberts's enclosure to this road, 
how can you undertake to swear that in passing from John 
R. Jackson's to Monticello, you passed over any part of the 
Company's claim ? 

Ans. — I only swear that from its relative location to the 
enclosure, that it passes through a portion of their claim, as 
I suppose. 

Int. 18.— You do not mean to swear then that you passed 
through any of the Company's claim on your road from John 
R. Jackson's to Monticello, but gave it as a mere guess that 
you did so ? 

Ans. — It being outside of the enclosure, I cannot swear 
that I did. 

Int. 19. — Under your instructions from Mr. Johnson, was 
it, or did you consider it your duty to examine and report 
upon the value of the farm and improvements belonging to 
the Company on the north bank of the Cowlitz river, known 
as the Cowlitz Farm, and consisting of 3,572 acres, more or 
less, as claimed by the Company in their memorial? 

Ans. — I so understood the instructions. 

Int. 20. — How many acres of the claim did you ride or 
walk over and examine, and did you make any examination 
whatever of the timber land embraced within the boundaries 
of this claim ? 

Ans.- — I did not examine the timber land on this claim, 
and probably rode and walked over a portion of two sections 
of the prairie. 
5 P 



50 

» 

InU 21. — What part of the distance did you ride over 
these lands, and what part did you walk? 

Ans. — I walked over that part that we measured and sur- 
veyed, and through portions of it, and rode the other part ? 

Int. 22. — Did you not meet Edward Huggins, one of the 
agents of the Company, on your arrival at the Cowlitz Farm, 
and did he not express his willingness and desire to show 
you over the whole of the Company's claim, so that you 
might be enabled to form a correct judgment of its value? 

Ans.— I did meet Mr. Huggins there at the Cowlitz, and 
lie expressed his willingness to show us over any portion of 
the farm that we desired to see. 

Int. 23. — If then you considered it your duty, from your 
instructions from Mr. Johnson, to examine the lands of the 
Company as claimed in their memorial', called the Cowlitz 
Farm, and the Company's agent was on the ground, and was 
desirous of your making an examination of the w T hole claim, 
why did you not do so ? (Objected to, as the witness has 
already testified in the report that he did do so, sufficiently 
to determine its value. Answer to the question insisted 
upon by the counsel for the Company, because, as shown by 
the Company's memorial, about half of the claim is timbered, 
land, and because the witness has testified in his cross-exami- 
nation that he made no examination whatever of those 
timbered lands, also that they made no examination of more 
than two sections of the prairie land;- the memorial showing 
that upwards of 1,500 acres are claimed as improved and 
under cultivation for farming and agricultural purposes.) 

Ans. — I considered that we had seen enough of the lands 
in the prairie to arrive at its value, and the timber-lands 
we did not consider it necessary to examine, because I con- 
sider that timber-lands- are worth less per acre than the 
prairie. 

Int. 24. — Did you examine any of the springs, water- 
courses, or the mill-site, upon this claim ? 

Ans. — I did not. 

Int. 25. — Would not the existence of a valuable mill-site, 
springs of water, and running streams, not subject to over- 



51 

flow, greatly increase the value of this claim, if such are to 
be found upon it? 

Ans. — 1 should consider that springs and small streams 
are valuable on this prairie; as. to the value of a mill-site, 
I cannot answer that intelligently, not knowing but that 
there may be other mill-sites in the same neighborhood. 

Int. 26.— If, then, these springs and water-courses, with the 
mill-site, would add to the value of this claim, how can you 
testify to the value of lands upon which they are situated, 
without having examined them, and without having ascer- 
tained whether there was any other available mill-site in the 
vicinity ? 

Ans. — My experience goes to show that it is often the 
case, that it is cheaper to use steam-power, than to improve 
and use water-power ; cannot testify as to its worth. 

Int. 27. — You state in your cross-examination that you 
did not examine at all the timber lands upon the claim ; state 
how you can undertake to testily to the value of lands you 
never saw. 

Ans. — I make up my estimate of value from prices asked 
for other lands fully as favorably situated. 

Int. 28. — If you never saw these timbered lands upon the 
claim, and know nothing of the quality of their soil, or the 
description and value of timber upon them, state how you 
can judge of their value by comparison with other lands. 

Ans. — I found that the more timber there was on lands, 
the less it is worth. 

Int. 29. — In your recapitulation, contained in your report, 
why do you estimate and value as Cowlitz Farm, 166 acres 
of land, at $5 per acre, instead of the Company's claim of 
3,500 acres and upwards, as described in their memorial, if 
it was your duty under your instructions from Mr. Johnson 
to examine and estimate the value of the whole claim of the 
Company ? 

Ans. — I had no boundaries to designate their claim, ex- 
cept that part that I found enclosed and occupied by Mr. 
Roberts? 

Int. 30.— Do you mean to be understood as testifying that 



52 

this 166 acres, the value of which is given in your recapitu- 
lation, was the Company's claim, called the Cowlitz Farm, 
that under your instructions from Mr. Johnson, it was your 
duty to examine and report the value of? 

Ans. — I considered that under our instructions we were to 
report directly upon the improvements and lands that we 
then found occupied by the Company. 

Int. 31. — Do you undertake to swear, that with the exam- 
ination you made of the Company's claim of 3,500 acres and 
upwards, you could give a correct and reliable value of this 
entire tract of land ? 

Ans. — That is my opinion. 

Int. 32. — Had you understood your instructions from Mr, 
Johnson to report upon the value of the entire claim, in- 
stead of the present possessions, which you say consisted of 
but 166 acres, would you have been satisfied upon your oath 
with the examination you did make to place a value upon 
the entire claim? 

Ans. — I would. 

Int. 33. — Did you consider it your duty, under your in- 
structions from Mr. Johnson, td examine and report upon 
the land of the Company between Nisqually and Puyallup 
rivers, as claimed in their memorial, extending along the 
shores of Puget's Sound from the Nisqually river on the 
one side, to the Puyallup on the other, and back to the Coast 
range of mountains, and containing not less than 261 square 
miles, or 167,040 acres. 

Ans. — I did not understand that we were to examine and 
report upon the whole of that land, but so much thereof as 
to satisfy us in making up the value of the whole. 

Int. 34. — Did you particularly examine the one hundred 
and sixtieth part of this, claim? 

Ans. — We rode through the whole or near [the] entire 
length twice, besides making a more particular examination 
of that part of the claim now occupied by Mr. Huggins. 

Int. 35. — Did you make any examination of this claim 
whatever, except what you described in your answer to the 
first cross-interrogatory ? 



53 

Ans. — We made no other examinations. 

Int. 36. — How far back from the shore of the Sound did 
you examine this claim ? 
' Ans. — About two miles. 

Int. 37. — Did you make any examination whatever, be- 
tween this point two miles distant from the shore of the 
Sound, of the lands lying between that and the Sound? 

Ans. — None other than as we rode over the land in the 
carriage. 

Int. 38.— How far distant from the shore of the Sound is 
the eastern boundary of the Company's claims? 

Ans. — I do not know. 

Int. 39. — Do you know, then, anything about what pro- 
portion of the Company's claim at Nisqually you did exam- 
ine at all? 

Ans. — I will answer that by referring to the answer to the 
first cross-interrogatory. 

Int. 40.— In your answer to the first cross-interrogatory, you 
describe a ride in a wagon at no point, according to your an- 
swer to a subsequent interrogatory, not more than two miles 
distant from the shore of the Sound ; you also state that you 
made no examination of the ground between that and the 
Sound, except as you looked around while riding in a wagon ; 
this, with the description of your particular examination of 
847 acres of land occupied by Mr. Huggins, with a portion 
of the lower site of Steilacoom, is all of the Company's 
claim that you have testified to having seen in any way, and 
does not give intelligibly any proportion of the Company's 
claim at Nisqually ; state, now, the proportions of the Com- 
pany's claim that you did examine. 

Ans. — I cannot state the proportion. 

Int. 41. — Did you see 5,000 acres of the Company's claim? 

Ans.— No. 

Int. 42. — Did you travel over 3,000 acres of the Company's 
claim ? 

Ans. — Taking a mile in width in travelling over the dis- 
tance, I did, seeing it from the wagon. 

Int. 43. — Did you make any examination of any of the 



54 

mill-sites improved or unimproved upon the claim, except 
the one at the mouth of the Segwalitehew? 

Ans. — I did not. 

Int. 44. — Did you examine any of the prairie lands of the 
Company's claim northward from the road you came into 
Steilacoorn, when you came from Mr. Huggins's? 

Ans. — Only as I could see it from the wagon. 

Int. 45. — Did you ever see v any of the Company's claim at 
Eisqnally, except as described in your foregoing answers ? 

Ans. — I did not. 

Int. 46. — Did not Mr. Huggins, the agent of the Company 
at Nisquall} , desire you to make an examination of the whole 
of the Company's claim at that place, and propose to show 
you over it, and point out its boundaries ? 

Ans — He proposed to show us over any parts that we de- 
sired to see. 

Int. 47. — If Mr. Johnson's instructions to you required 
you to examine and report upon the value of the Company's 
claim at Nisquatty, why did you examine only the small por- 
tion of the claim that you testily to having seen ? 

Ans. — That part of the claim that we did see was so sim- 
ilar, that we considered we had seen sufficient to form oar 
conclusions. 

Int. 48. — How can you testifv that lands never seen bv 
you were similar to others that you had examined ? (Ob- 
jected to, as the witness has not so testified, but only that 
the lands he did see were similar to each other. Answer in- 
sisted upon, and protest of the counsel for the Company 
entered against the counsel for the United States entering an 
objection that simply suggests the answer that the witness 
shall give.) 

Ans. — I have not testified to that ; I don't testify to that. 

Int. 49. — How, then, can you testify to the value of these 
lands, not seen by you, being of the same value as lands on 
the same tract that you did examine ? 

Ans. — Only upon the similarity of the lands we did see. 

Int. 50. — Did you not observe the difference of soil in the 



55 

several prairies you passed through from ISTisqually bridge to 
Steilacoom ? 

Ans. — -I noticed but very little difference in different 
prairies. 

Int. 51. — About how wide is the belt of timber land be- 
tween Puget's Sound and the Nisqually plains? 

Ans. — I cannot answer that correctly ; at the town of Steila- 
coom. probably half a mile. 

Int. 52. — Is not this belt of timbered land, so far as you 
examined it, of a very fertile quality, and susceptible of a 
Yevy high state of cultivation ? 

Ans. — I examined a small portion at the town of Steila- 
coom that is well adapted to a high state of cultivation, the 
other portion I did not examine so minutely, and cannot 
answer. 

fnl, 53.— Do you mean to swear that the prairies between 
Kisqually bridge and Mr. Huggins's are a mile wide? 

Ans. — I do not. 

Int. 54. — Have you any practical knowledge of agricul- 
ture, sheep farming, or stock-raising? 

Ans.— I was raised on a farm, from my boyhood, until I 
was seventeen years old, since which time I have not been in 
the firming business. 

Int. 55. — Do you know anything about the price of agri- 
cultural products, of live-stock, or of meats in the vicinity 
of either Cowlitz Farm or Steilacoom ? 

Ans. — I do know something of the prices of such articles. 

Int. 56. — How do they compare with the prices of like ar- 
ticles in the Willamette Valley, are they higher or lower? 

Ans. — At Steilacoom they are higher; at Cowlitz, products 
are lower ; as to the price of stock at Cowlitz, I cannot say. 

Int. 57. — Are you acquainted with the prices of these dif- 
ferent articles, at these different points, during the last eight 
years ? 

A'is. — I am not. 

Int 58. — What is hay worth per ton at the Cowlitz Farm? 

Ans. — I do not know. 

Int. 59. — In your recapitulation and estimate of the value 



56 

of the Nisqually farm, you designated [it] as consisting of 847 
acres. If you were instructed by Mr. Johnson to examine 
and estimate the value of the lands of the Company at ISTis- 
qually, as claimed in their memorial, consisting of upwards 
of 16,700 acres, why did you give the value in your recapit- 
ulation of 847 acres, instead of the value of the whole claim ? 

Ans. — I understood, from his instructions, that we were to 
report more directly upon the improvements and the claims 
enclosed and occupied by them. 

Int. 60. — Did not you, or one of the persons with you, say 
to Mr. Huggins that you did not care to see the whole claim, 
as you considered that you had nothing to do, except with 
the grounds and improvements then in possession of the 
Company, or words to that effect ? 

Ans. — Xot to my knowledge. 

Int. 61. — State what personal inspection you made of the 
records of Peirce county. 

Ans. — I made no personal inspection, but was in the office 
during a part of the time that Mr. Applegate examined. 

Int. 62. — How, then, can yon, under oath, state that any 
particular record will be found at the clerk's office at Steila- 
coom, as you do state in your report, subscribed and sworn 
to by you, and made a part of your testimony-in-chief in 
this case ? 

Ans. — I saw the extract taken by Mr. Applegate, and be- 
lieve it to be correct. 

Int. 63. — What extract did Mr. Applegate make from the 
records of the county? 

Ans. — I have not got that in my possession, and cannot 
state them properly. 

Int. 64. — If you were the owner of 3,572 acres of land on 
the north bank of the Cowlitz river, valued by you at twenty 
thousand pounds sterling, and you had made an agreement to 
dispose of it at a price to be fixed by referees upon testimony as 
to its value to be submitted to them, would you think it fair, 
or would you be willing that those referees should determine 
its value upon the testimony of one or more men who made 
Buch examination of it as you made of the Company's claim, 



57 

called the Cowlitz Farm, and who were unacquainted with 
the markets for its products, and of any other or different 
value that it might have, beyond similar lands less favorably 
located? (Objected to, as it does not appear that the witness 
and those associated with him were so ignorant.) 

Ans. — I would be willing to submit a like claim to one or 
more fpersons who were old residents of the county, and 
considered competent judges; I do not admit that I am not 
acquainted with the market and counties surrounding. 

Int. 65. — Were you ever upon or nearer than thiiiy miles 
of Cowlitz Farm, until you visited it at this time, and were 
you ever nearer Msqually than 130 miles, until this visit ? 

Ans. — I was never nearer either place than' the mouth of 
the Cowlitz. 

Int. 66. — Do you not know that the principal markets for 
the live-stock of both Cowlitz and Nisqually, and of all the 
farm products, raised for sale at Nisqually and its vicinity, 
are the markets of the Lower Puget's Sound country, Vic- 
toria, and that part of British Columbia lying west of the 
Cascade range of mountains? 

Ans. — Yes, I do. 

Int. 67. — Were you ever in either of these markets, or 
nearer to them than the mouth of the Cowlitz river, until 
you made your late visit to Msqually ? 

Ans. — I never was. 

Int. 68. — Do you know what the prices of agricultural 
products of meats, or live-stock, have been during the last 
eight years, or are now in these markets, or either of them ? 
If you do, state them. 

Ans. — I do not know the market price. 

Int. 69. — If you were the owner of 167,000 acres of land, 
between the Nisqually and Puyallup rivers, with the improve- 
ments thereon, for instance the land claimed by the Puget's 
Sound Agricultural Company, and its improvements by their 
memorial to [the] Joint Commission, and valued the same 
at one hundred and sixty-four thousand pounds sterling, and 
you had made an agreement to dispose of it at a price to be 
fixed by referees, upon testimony to be submitted to them as 



58 

to its value, would you think it fair, or would you be willing 
that those referees should determine its value upon the testi- 
mony of one or more men who made sueh an examination 
of it, and only such an examination as you made of the Com- 
pany's claim at Ni squally? 

Am — I would be willing to submit a like claim upon the 
testimony of one or more persons who were old residents of 
the country, and considered competent judges. 

Int. 70. — Is this all your answer to the last interrogatory, 
and the only one you will make ? 

Ans. — It is. 

Int. 71. — What do you mean by saying you are acquainted 
with the markets of the Cowlitz Farm and the Nisqually 
sections of country? 

Ans. — I am acquainted with those markets chiefly as they 
are quoted from week,to week in the several papers. 

Int. 72. — Is there any paper, that you have ever seen, that 
quotes the market prices of products or live-stock on the 
lower Puget's Sound or British Columbia markets ? If so, 
state what one. 

Ans. — I do not now remember of any papers published on 
the lower Sound, or at Victoria, or British Columbia. 

Int. 73. — Is the judgment you have already passed uprn 
the value of the Cowlitz and Nisqually claims, as correct as 
a further full and complete examination of those places 
would enable you to give? 

Ans. — I so consider it. 

Direct examination resumed. 

Int. 1.— In what papers or paper have you seen the market 
quotations you refer to ? 

Ans. — I do not remember the names of the papers pub- 
lished at Olympia ; it was in those I saw them. 

Cross- exam (nation Resumed. 

Int. 1. — Did you ever see in any Olympia paper the market 
prices of the lower Sound, Victoria, or British Columbia 



59 

markets, or did you ever see the price of live-stock anywhere 
quoted in either of these papers ? 

Ans. — I have noticed the sale of li^e-stock in the Olympia 
papers of Olympia markets ; of the lower markets I have 
not. 

John C. Carson. 

Oregon City, Oregon, August 25, 1866. 



Testimony of Jacob S. Rinearson. 

Jacob S. Binearson, being first duly sworn, deposeth and 
says : 

Int. 1.— State your age, place of residence, and occupation. 

Ans.—Mj age is forty-four years; residence, Clackamas 
county, Oregon, near Oregon City; my occupation is that 
of a farmer and surveyor; for the last three or four years 
my business has been that of a soldier, as Major of the first 
Oregon cavalry. 

Int. 2. — How long have you resided in .Oregon? 

Ans. — Most of the time since 1845 ? 

Int. 3. — Have you lately made an examination of the 
claims of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company at Cow- 
litz prairie and on the Nlsqually Plains? If so, state when, 
in connection with whom, and by whose directions. (The 
last two clauses of this interrogatory are objected to by 
counsel for the Company, as irrelevant and immaterial.) 

Ans. — I have, within the last two weeks, in connection 
with Mr. Applegate and Mr. Carson, by direction of ¥m, 
C. Johnson, attorney for the United States in this case. 

Int. 4. — Look upon the report marked "G," made part of 
the deposition of Jesse Applegate in this case now shown 
you, and state what it is, and what you wish done with it in 
relation to your evidence now to be given. (Objected to by 
counsel for the Company, as irrelevant and immaterial.) 

Ans. — It is an estimate or valuation of buildings and fenc- 
ing of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Society, as pointed 



60 

out by Mr. Roberts and Huggins, and also a valuation of 
lands claimed by the same Company, which I wish to be 
part of my evidence in this case. (The counsel for the Com- 
pany objects to the introduction of this report, and to its be- 
ing made a part of the testimony of this witness, because it 
is informal, incompetent, and unauthorized by law. The 
counsel for the Company also enter a protest against this 
mode of examination of this witness, because unauthorized 
by law, and claim that the witness should be particularly 
inquired of in reference to all matters testified to by him, so 
that an opportunity may be given to interpose objections to 
the questions of counsel and the answers of the witness, so far 
as the same may be incompetent, 'irrelevant, or immaterial. 
The counsel for the United States makes the same tender to 
the counsel for the Company, as noted in the depositions of 
Jesse Applegate and J. C. Carson. The counsel for the 
Company insists that if the paper termed a report is to be 
used in any respect as the testimony of this witness, that it 
shall be written out in full as his evidence in this deposition, 
the same being neither an exhibit or a document capable of 
being introduced as such, but simply the written statement 
of the witness and of other parties.) 

Int. 5. — Do you now adopt that report, and make it part 
of your deposition ? 

Ans. — I do. (The counsel for the Company objects to this 
report being made a part of the testimony of , this witness, 
because it is incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant, and con- 
tains statements not pertinent to the issue; it is also objected 
to as a whole, because no opportunity has been given to in- 
terpose objections to clauses or parts thereof, which arc in- 
competent as hearsay, and for other reasons.) 

Int. 6. — Were you ever at either of these places before the 
time above referred to? If so, state when, and how long 
you remained in the neighborhood. 

Ans. — I was at Nisqually in 1864, and remained in the 
neighborhood some four or five days. I was at Fort Steila- 
coom, attending court-martial, and rode around its neigh- 
borhood for a mile or so. 



61 



Cross-examination by Counsel for Pugefs Sound Agricultural 

Company. 

Int. 1.— Yon state in your examination-in-chief that you 
were one of the parties sent by Mr. Johnson to make an ex- 
amination of the Cowlitz Farm, and at Msqually, and to re- 
port to him the result of such examination. Now state the 
date of your leaving Portland upon this mission, the mode 
of travel, the time of your arrival at Cowlitz Farm, what ex- 
amination you there made, the time of making such exami- 
nation, when you left Cowlitz farm, and the time engaged 
in traveling thence to Nisqually, what examination you there 
made of the Company's property, and the time employed by 
you in making such examination. 

Arts. — I left Portland on Saturday, August 11th, 1866, in 
company with Mr. Applegate and Mr., Carson. I w T ent by 
steamer to Monticello, and arrived there about noon on 
the same day. We remained at Monticello not over half an 
hour, and proceeded by land, in a two-horse carriage. We 
arrived at the Cowlitz Farm early in the day, on Sunday, 
the 12th. We spent a few hours at Mr. Roberts's, and then 
returned to Lucy Debos', and spent the night there. I think 
we left there about six o'clock in the morning, and returned 
to Mr. Roberts's and made a survey of the enclosed lands, 
as pointed out by Mr. Roberts, as the improvements of the 
Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, then occupied by 
them. The enclosure amounted to 166 acres. We were 
engaged in making a survey of the land and measurement of 
the buildings, I should think six or seven hours. Between 
two or three o'clock, p. m., on Monday, the 13th, we left 
Cowlitz Farm, en route for Nisqually, and arrived late in the 
evening at a farm-house near Skookum Chuck, where we spent 
the night. We left the next morning, and arrived late in 
the evening of Tuesday, the 14th, at Mr. Huggins's house, at 
Nisqually. On Wednesday morning after an examination 
and a walk over the premises of some two or three hours, we 
returned to Mr. Huggins's, and took breakfast, after which, in 



62 

company with Mr. Huggins, we visited the warehouse, sit- 
uated on the beach, about a mile distant from Mr. Huggins's. 
After examining the warehouse, we. returned and spent the 
remainder of the day in surveying the 847 acres mentioned 
in the report, and a survey and measurement ot the buildings 
and improvements situated thereon, and remained at Mr. 
Huggins's the night of the 15th. At about eight o'clock on 
Thursday morning, the 16th, we drove in a two horse car- 
riage, in an easterly direction, for some miles, making a cir- 
cuitous route, bearing a northerly direction, to the town of 
Steilacoom. We drove pretty rapidly, I think 'we were not 
more than one and a half hours on the road. We remained 
in Steilacoom till two or three o'clock, p. m. Whilst in 
Steilacoom, Mr. Applegate proceeded to the clerk's office 
and made some extracts from the records of the county. I 
should think he was engaged in the clerk's office an hour or 
so, after which, in company with Mr. Frank Clark, we visi- 
ted various places, including some gardens and other im- 
provements on the town-site. About three o'clock, p. m., 
the same clay, we left for Mr. Huggins's by a different route 
part of the way. We were not over three quarters of an 
hour in driving to Mr. Huggins's. We remained at Mr. 
Huggins's but a short time, and then drove to Olympia, 
where we arrived about sun-down. We left Olympia on the 
morning of Friday, the 17th, and arrived at John R. Jack- 
son's late in the evening, where we remained over night. 
On Saturday morning, the 18th, we proceeded en route to 
Monticeilo, by way of Cowlitz prairie, and arrived at Monti- 
cello in the evening of the same day. Going on board of 
the steamer, we left that place for Portland, where we ar- 
rived about three o'clock, a. rn., of Sunday, the 19th. 

Int. 2. — Have you described in your foregoing testimony 
all the examination you ever made, up to this date, of the 
Company's lands, either at Cowlitz Farm or Nisqually ? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int. 3. — How many acres of the Company's land, called 
the Cowlitz Farm, consisting of 3,500 acres and upwards, 



63 

did you travel over and examine, as claimed in their memo- 
rial ? 

Ahs. — We travelled over what would probably constitute 
one half the amount, as I understand their boundaries to be. 

Int. 4. — What proportion of their claim of 3,500 acres 
and upwards, called Cowlitz Farm, is timber land ? 

Ans. — I understand, from the manner in which it was de- 
scribed, that but a small proportion, but mostly prairie and 
some brush land. 

Int. 5. —Do you know where any of the boundaries of this 
claim are, by having personally inspected them ? 

Ans.— I do. 

Int. 6. — Which boundaries ? 

Ans. — The boundary joining the Mission claim; the 
boundary on the north was pointed out as we were pas- 
sing over by Mr. Miles, stating that this swale is the north- 
ern boundary of the Cowlitz .Farm ; the other boundaries 
were pointed out to us at Mr. Boberts's, upon some maps 
that were furnished of the surveys of that section of the 
country, but were not travelled over at that time by either 
Mr. Appiegate or myself; Mr. lioberts, afterwards, as we 
were walking over the premises, pointing from the high lands, 
near where his buildings are, describing to us the boundaries 
of the Cowlitz Farm. 

Int. 7. — Did you examine the northern boundary line, any 
more than riding across it in a wagon in company with Mr. 
Miles ? 

Ans. — I made no definite examination of lines beyond 
merely paying strict attention to the kind of soil over which 
we were passing, remarking at the time that it was a very 
large boundary, meaning that if the swale is the northern 
boundary, that it would be indefinite. 

Int. 8. — By the last interrogatory, I did not ask you what 
remarks you made to Mr. Miles on your trip, neither did I 
ask for your opinion of the definiteness or indefiniteness of 
the northern boundary line of the Cowlitz Farm, nor whether, 
what you did see of this line, was consci[ent]ously or car- 
fully observed by you ; but I did ask you, and I now repeat the 



64 

question, which I wish you to answer with Yes, or No ; it is 
as follows: " Did you examine the northern boundary line 
any more than riding across it in a wagon in company with 
Mr. Miles ? (The foregoing question is objected to by coun- 
sel of the United States, as it impertinently undertakes to 
dictate the answer which the witness shall make, which is 
not the province of any attorney.) 

(The counsel for the Company insists upon a direct answer 
to the question, and claims that if an impertinence is to be 
found in the language of either of the attorneys in this case, it 
is to be found in the last objection of Attorney Johnson.) 

Ans. — I have already given all the information that I pos- 
sess, knowingly, of the northern boundary of the Cowlitz 
Farm, when your question was first asked me. 

Int. 9. — Did you ever see this northern boundary line, ex- 
cept while riding across it and in its vicinity, and while you 
were sitting in Miles's wagon ? 

Avs. — -I crossed a swale in a wagon, that swale was said to 
be the northern boundary of the Cowlitz Farm. 

Int. 10. — Did you ever see this northern boundary line 
when you were not in a wagon ? 

Ans. — I suppose not. 

Int. 11. — Do you know that you ever did see it when you 
were not in a wagon? 

Ans. — I do not know that I ever have ; we got out of the 
wagon before we fairly crossed the swale. 

Int. 12. — Did you walk any distance from the wagon, on 
either side of the road? 

Ans. — t do not know how many steps I made from the 
wagon, bat w T as certainly not a great distance from it at any 
time. 

Int. 13. — When you got out of the wagon in the swale, or 
in its vicinity, were you half a mile from it on either side of 
the road ? 

Ans. — No, 

Int. 14. — Were you thirty steps from the wagon on cither 
side of the road ? 

Ans. — No ; I think not. 



65 

Int. 15. — Did you examine any of the springs, water- 
courses, or the mill-site upon this claim ? 

Ans. — I examined no mill-site, but saw a small stream 
there. 

Int. 16. — Did you not meet Edward Huggins, one of the 
Company's agents, at Cowlitz Farm, and did he not express 
his willingness and desire to show you over the entire claim, 
and to point out its boundaries to you ? 

Ans. — I met Mr. Huggins at the Cowlitz Farm ; Mr. Hug- 
gins, to my recollection, had but little to say about the Cow- 
litz Farm ; to my best recollection he did not. 

Int. 17. — Did Mr. .Roberts make this proffer to you ? 

Ans. — Mr. Roberts did show us over the premises and 
pointed out his lines. We then got the maps, with a view to 
ascertain how they laid in reference to the survey, and found 
by the maps that they closed upon no lines. 

Int. 18. — Did, or did not, Mr. Roberts proffer to show you 
for the Company over the Company's entire claim, and to 
point out for your personal inspection its boundary lines ? 

Ans. — Mr. Roberts did show us over the claim, and I have 
no doubt would, if requested, have gone aloog and pointed 
out where their claim run to. 

Int. 19.— Did you consider it your duty, under your in- 
structions from Mr. Johnson, to examine the Company's 
claim, as claimed by them in their memorial, called the Cow- 
litz Farm ? 

Ans. — Our instructions were to ascertain the amount of 
improvements in the way of buildings, fencing, &c. ; to ascer- 
tain' the amount of land enclosed, and the probable value of 
the same; and to generally so examine the country in the 
vicinity, so as to be able to judge somewhat as to the value 
of the lands in the vicinity. 

Int. 20. — Are you as competent, in your opinion, to fix a 
value upon the tract of land claimed by the Company, called 
the Cowlitz Farm, from an examination particularly made 
of but 166 acres of it, and a general examination, as you have 
testified, of not more than half of- the claim, as you would be 
6 P 



if you were to make a full aucl complete examination of the 
whole claim? 

Ans. — I think not. 

Int. 21. — Are you as competent to fix a correct value upon 
the claim of the Company between the Nisqually and Puy- 
allup rivers, in Pierce county, extending along the shores of 
Puget's Sound, from the Nisqually river on the one side, to 
the Puyallup on the other, and back to the coast range of 
mountains, containing about 261 square miles, or 167,040 
acres, with the examination you have made of that tract of 
land, as you would be were you to make a full and complete 
examination and survey of the entire claim ? 

Ans. — I think very probably not. 

Int. 22. — Did you discover any difference in the soil of the 
various prairies passed through by you in traveling from 
Msqually bridge to Steilacoom ? 

Ans. — ~Ho great difference. 

Int. 23. — What small difference in the soil of these prairies 
did you discover, if any ? 

Ans. — There was a great sameness in all the prairies. Ex- 
cepting the prairie next to Msqually bridge, there appeared 
to be more sand and a less amount of gravel on the surface. 

Int. 24. — Was the examination you made of the Company's 
claim at Nisqually made in company with Jesse Applegate 
and J. C. Carson ? 

Ans. — Yes ; I have traveled over much more of the Ms- 
qually than, perhaps, either Mr. Carson or Applegate did, 
but was no further back from the Sound than they were. 

Int. 25. — Did you make any personal inspection of the 
records of Pierce county ? 

Ans. — I did not; I was in the office when Mr. Applegate 
examined them, and took extracts, and looked over his 
extracts. 

Int. 26. — How, then, can you state under oath that any 
particular record will be found at the clerk's office in Steila- 
coom? 

Ans. — I was there at the time Mr. Huggins ami Mr. Ap- 



6T 

plegate were making the extracts from the records— most of 
the time. 

Int. 27. — If you were the owner of 167,000 acres of land 
between the Nisqually and Puyallup rivers, with the im- 
provements thereon, for instance the land claimed by the 
Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, and its improve, 
merits, by their memorial to the Joint Commission, and 
valued the same at 164,000 pounds sterling, and you had 
made an agreement to dispose of it at a price to be fixed by 
referees, upon testimony to be submitted to them as to its 
value, would you think it fair, or would you be willing that 
those referees should determine its value upon the testimony 
of one or more men who made such an examination of it, 
and only such an examination as you made of the Company's 
claim at Msqually ? 

Ans. — If I had a claim of that value, and the parties made 
to examine that claim were men who had had experience in 
examining, and men who were competent to judge of the 
value of lands and improvements, and have made sufficient 
examination to judge correctly of the same, I would be 
satisfied. 



J. S. RlNEARSON. 



Oregon City, August 25, 1866. 



State op Oregon, ) 
Clackamas County, j ' 

I, J. M. Bacon, county clerk of said county, do hereby 
certify that the foregoing depositions, hereto annexed, of 
Jesse Applegate, J. C. Carson, and J. S. Rinearson, wit- 
nesses produced by and [in] behalf of the United States, in 
relation to the matter of the claim of the Puget's Sound 
Agricultural Company, before the British and American 
Joint Commission for the adjustment of the same, were 
taken before me, at my office in Oregon City, in said county, 
and reduced to writing by me, (except the report of the ex- 
perts,) on the 24th and 25th days of August, A. D. 1866, 



68 

according to the dates appended to said depositions, when 
they were signed respectively. I further certify that such 
depositions were taken before me in pursuance of a verbal 
agreement made in my presence between W. C. Johnson, 
Esq., attorney for the United States, and Frank Clark, Esq., 
attorney for the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company. 

I further certify that to each of said witnesses, before his 
examination, I administered the following oath, to wit : 

" You swear that the evidence you may give in the matter 
of the claim of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company 
against the United States shall be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God." 

That after the same was reduced to writing, the deposition 
or each witness was carefully read to and then signed by 
them. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name 

r T « -] arid affixed the seal of said county this 25th day 

L ' ' J August, A. D. 1866. 

J. M. Bacon, County Clerk. 



BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION 



UPON THE CLAIMS OF THE 



HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICUL- 
TURAL COMPANIES. 



In the matter of the Claim of the Pugefs Sound Agricultural 
Company vs. the United States. 

Depositions of witnesses produced and examined • in the 
town of Olympia, in the Territory of Washington, on 
behalf of the United States, on the 16th day of Novem- 
ber, A. D. 1866, and succeeding days, before Andrew 
J. Moses, a notary public in and for the Territory of 
Washington, by virtue of a verbal agreement made in 
my presence by W. Carey Johnson,. Esq., on behalf of 
the United States, and Frank Clark, Esq., on behalf of 
the said Puget's Sound Agricultural Company. 

Testimony op Hon. C. C. Hewitt. 

The Hon. C. C. Hewitt being first duly sworn, in answer to 
interrogatories, deposes as follows : 

Int. 1. — State your age, residence, and occupation. 

Ans. — Age, fifty-four; residence, Olympia, Washington 
Territory. I am chief justice of Washington Territory, and 
also carrying on a farm in Thurston county, Washington 
Territory. 

Int. 2. — How many years have you resided in Washington 
Territory ? 

Ans.— Thirteen years. 

Int. 3. — What opportunities, if any, have you had to know 
the market value of agricultural lands in Lewis, Thurston, 
and Pierce counties, during that period? 



70 

Arts. — I have travelled over the settled portions of those 
counties during that period. I have never dealt in lands, ex- 
cept that I bought a farm four miles from Olympia ; I have 
never heard the price of lands very much discussed among 
the farmers of those counties. 

Int. 4. — Are you acquainted with the tract of land in 
Pierce county claimed by the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
Company, known as the Nisqually Plains ? If so, state 
what is the character of the soil, and what, in your opinion, 
the land is worth per acre, on the average. 

Arts. — I have been over the tract of land known in this 
country as the Nisqually Plains, but do not know the bound- 
ary of the Puget's Sound Company's claims, and could not 
lix an average value. There are several characters of soil 
included within the claim ; the most of the prairie, which in- 
cludes the greater portion Of the claim, I should think is 
gravelly, and is of but- little value except for grazing pur- 
poses, and [of] no great value for that. The river bottoms 
are an alluvial soil, and very rich. There are portions of 
the timbered lands that are commonly known as the clay 
loam. 

Int. 5. — At about what sum would you fix the average 
market value of good improved agricultural lands in the 
counties you have named, in 1863, or at any time since, 
away from the immediate vicinity of towns ? 

Ans. — What we know in this country as agricultural prai- 
rie lands I should fix at about $5 per acre; timbered land 
I do not think has any value for agricultural purposes. I 
would not take it if a man was to give it to me. 

Int. 6. — How would the prairie land on the Nisqually 
Plains compare with what you have described in the pre- 
ceeding answers as good agricultural land ? 

Ans. — I would rate it about one to four, or one fourth as 
much. 

Int. 7. — Are the rich lands of the Ni squally claim, which 
you say are on the river and creek bottoms, timbered or 
prairie? 

Ans. — Most that I am acquainted with are timbered. 



71 

Int. 8. — Have you purchased any land in Washington Ter- 
ritory ? If so, state the amount, description, nature of the 
improvements, when the purchase was made, and about the 
price paid per acre. 

Ans. — I have purchased a farm of 320 acres of prairie 
and timber; about two thirds of it is prairie. The prairie 
was all under good fence, a very good story- an d-a-half frame 
house, 18 by 40 feet, with an L kitchen and a good well of 
water; and about 1,200 bearing fruit trees of different kinds, 
consisting of apples, pears, plums, peaches, and cherries, 
were on the place. The purchase was made in the fall of 
1862; the cost was about $5.30 per acre, including the im- 
provements. I afterwards purchased the improvements on 
some fractions of Government land, and then entered the 
land at Government price. (Last question and answer ob- 
jected to by counsel for the Company as incompetent, irrel- 
evant, and immaterial.) 

Cross-examined by Frank Clark, Esq. , for the Company. 

Int. 1. — Were all the improvements to be removed from 
the tract of land owned by you and referred to in your ex- 
amination-in-chief, what would you take for the prairie por- 
tion of the same in money? 

Ans. — I would charge as much for the prairie land as I 
would for the whole, and would sell the whole for $5 an acre 
if the land was in a state of nature. 

Int. 2. — Who did you purchase of? 

Ans. — John !N". Law. 

Int. 3. — What was the occasion of his selling ? 

Ans. — He said he wished to remove to California. 

Int. 4. — Was he not in debt and obliged to sell ? 

Ans. — -I cannot say ; I know there was a mortgage on the 
place. 

Int. 5.— Was there any sorrel on the place when you per- 
chased it ? 

Ans. — Yes, plenty of it. 

Int. 6. — Is there as much on it now ? If not, state the 
reason. 



72 

Ans. — There is not as much. The reason is, the timothy 
grass has run a portion of it out; ancfa great portion of the 
balance has been killed by good cultivation. 

Int. 7. — For what purposes is the prairie part of your 
claim principally valuable ? 

Ans. — Grain, grass, pasture, fruit, and vegetables. 

Int. 8. — When properly cultivated, what quantity of wheat, 
oats, or barley will it raise to the acre ? 

Ans. — -In my opinion, twenty-five bushels of wheat, forty 
bushels of oats ; barley, I cannot say. 

Int. 9. — When properly cultivated, what quantity of timo- 
thy will it raise to the acre ? 

Ans. — One ton and a half, in my opinion ; it raised over 
a ton this summer with ordinary cultivation. 

Int. 10. — What quantity of roots will it produce to the 
acre with proper cultivation ? 

Ans. — From my experience, I think it would raise three 
hundred bushels of potatoes, and six hundred bushels of 
ruta-bagas. For other vegetables, I have not had expe- 
rience sufficient to form an opinion. 

Int. 11. — State the value per bushel of wheat, oats, pota- 
toes and rutabagas. 

Ans. — I could not state ; I have never raised any for sale. 

Int. 12. — What is the value of timothy hay per ton ? 

Ans. — Timothy hay is worth $10 per ton, in the field, in 
that neighborhood. 

Int. 13. — How do fruit trees thrive there? 

Ans. — Nothing extra for most kinds of fruit ; cherries and 
plums thrive extraordinarily well. 

Int. 14. — State in detail the portions of Nisqually Plains, 
or the Company's claim in Pierce county, over which you 
have traveled, and with which you are familar. 

Ans. — I am most familiar with the portion traversed by 
the road from Olympia to Steilacoom, and the military post 
back of the town. I have traveled the road several times 
from Fort Steilacoom to the crossing of the Puyallup, at 
Carson's; twice about 1859 or 18C0, once in 1858, and at 
other times, the dates of which I do not remember. I have 



73 

traveled the road once from Fort Steilacoom to Montgom- 
ery's, in 1856 or 1857. I have travelled the road once from 
Fortj Steilacoom to Yelm Prairie, I think in the spring of 
1854. I have also been on the Msqually Indian Reserva- 
tion, and four miles above it on the river. 

Int. 15. — Are you acquainted with Dominick's prairie ? 

Ans. — Eo. \ 

Int. 16. — Are you acquainted with the land known as 
Thomas Tallan tyre's claim, situate on the Company's claim, 
in Pierce county, containing about 320 acres of rich soil, 
composed of black mould and gravel? (Objected [to] by 
Counsel for the United States, as there is no evidence show- 
ing that the soil of this particular claim is of the description 
named.) 

Ans. — No. 

Int. 17. — Are you acquainted with the claims of any of 
the squatters on the Company's lands in Pierce county ? If 
yea, designate and describe them. 

Ans. — I can only designate the claim of John Montgom- 
ery, but cannot describe it. 

Int. 18. — Can you describe the tracts on the Company's 
claim, consisting of gravelly soil, and those consisting of 
sandy and other descriptions of soil ? 

Ans. — I cannot particularly describe them. 

Int. 19. — Please describe, if you can, the soil on and 
around the Indian reservation, situate upon this claim. 

Ans. — The most that I have seen of it is gravelly ; I do 
not know where the lines of the reservation are. 

Questioned by W. C. Johnson, Esq . 

Int. 1.— Is the soil of your claim what would be called 
sandy ? 

Ans. — ISTo, sir. 

Int. 2. — How far is it from Olympia ? 

Ans. — About four miles. 



74 



Cross-examination Resumed. 

Int. 1. — If the soil of your claim is not sanely, what is it? 
Ans. — It is a vegetable mould, mixed with sand and loam. 
>. C. C. Hewitt. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of 

Andrew J. Moses, 
Notary Public, W. T. 



t L * s -l November, A. D. 1866. 



Testimony of Gen. "William W. Miller. 

General William W. Miller being first duly sworn, in answer 
to interrogatories, deposes as follows : 

Int. 1. — State your age, residence, and occupation. 

Ans. — I am forty-one years old ; reside at Olympia, Wash- 
ington Territory; by occupation a broker and money-lender. 

Int. 2. — When did you first come to Washington Terri- 
tory ? 

Ans. — About August, 1851. 

Int. 3. — At what points have you resided since that time? 

Ans. — I first came to the Territory as surveyor of customs 
and trading office at Msqually landing, until I was removed 
in the summer of 1853.; during this time I have spent most 
of my time at Olympia; since the summer of 1853 I have 
resided altogether at Olympia. 

Int. 4. — What official positions have you held in Wash- 
ington Territory since 1853 ? 

Ans. — I was clerk of the United States district court, dep- 
uty collector of customs, quartermaster and commissary 
general of volunteers during the Indian war of 1855 and 
1856, member of both branches of the Territorial Legislature, 
and superintendent of Indian affairs. 

Int. 5. — In loaning money, what kind of security do you 
ordinarily take in this Territory? (Objected to by counsel 
for the Company, as irrelevant and immaterial.) 



75 

Ans. — Personal security and real estate. 

Int. 6. — What kind of real estate have you most frequently 
loaned money on? (Objected 'to by counsel for the Com- 
pany, for the same reasons as before.) 

Ans. — Donation land claims, town property, and mill 
property. 

Int. 7. — What other facilities and opportunities, if any, 
have you enjoyed for obtaining a knowledge of the value of 
land in Washington Territory ? 

Ans. — I know of no other facilities than those afforded by 
my business. 

Int. 8. — State whether or not you have had conversations 
with farmers and other owners of lands about their value, 
and whether or not you have known of purchases and sales; 
if yea, state whether frequently or otherwise. (Objected to 
by counsel for the Company as incompetent, and as hearsay.) 

Ans. — Of course, in pursuit of my business, I have had 
many conversations with divers persons, with regard to the 
value of lands and other property; of course I have had 
much to do with the purchase and sale of lands; probably 
more than any other man in this part of the country. 

Int. 9. — Into what counties has your business principally 
extended ? 

Ans. — Principally in Thurston, Lewis, Mason, and Che- 
halis; and to a limited extent, to all the counties. on the 
Sound. 

Int. 10. — About what was the market value per acre of 
good farming land in Lewis, Thurston, and Pierce counties, 
in 1863, without including the value of improvements away 
from the immediate vicinity of towns ? 

Ans. — It is a hard question to answer. This portion of 
Washington Territory is composed of some excellent lands, 
but much the larger portion is very poor. I have known 
some small tracts of very rich land, that were surrounded by 
grazing land of a poorer kind, to sell for from ten to twenty 
dollars per acre ; but these were extreme cases. I have known 
other tracts of the best quality of prairie land, free from 
gravel, to sell for from a dollar and a-half to four dollars per 



76 

acre, not including the improvements ; gravelly prairie land 
is generally worth about Government entrance price, and 
sometimes a shade higher. 

Int. 11. — Are you acquainted with the tract of land in 
Lewis county, of something less than 4,000 acres, known as 
the Cowlitz farm, claimed by the Puget's Sound Agricultu- 
ral Company ? 

Ans. — I am not well acquainted with its metes and bounds, 
though I own two or three thousand acres in the immediate 
vicinity; with that portion of the Cowlitz prairie claimed by 
the Puget's Sound Company I am not very familiar. Sev- 
eral years ago I rode over that portion of the prairie which 
I supposed belonged to the Puget's Sound Company. 

Int. 12. — Have you lately passed through the Cowlitz 
prairie, and in the vicinity of the land occupied by Mr. Eob- 
erts, as lessee of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company? 

Ans. — I don't know precisely where Mr. Roberts lives, 
and I imagine I was not nearer his residence than the 
mission claim, which is on the Cowlitz prairie. 

Int. 13. — Taking the tract of land claimed by the Com- 
pany above the mission claim oirthat prairie, including the 
heavy timber next to the river, and running back across the 
prairie, so as to include the ash swale, at what price per 
acre would you fix its value in gold, without any improve- 
ment ? 

Ans. — The prairie portion of the land, without the im- 
provements, I would value at from three 'to five dollars per 
acre in gold coin. The timbered portion of the land would 
have no market value at present; or at any rate, it would be 
very small. 

Int. 14. — Are you acquainted with the tract of land be- 
tween the JSTisqually and Puyallup rivers, in Pierce county, 
known as the Nisqually Plains, and claimed by the Puget's 
Sound Company ? 

Ans. — I am very well acquainted with the tract of country 
known as the Msqually Plains, though I do not know what 
are the exact metes and bounds of the claims of the Puget's 
Sound Agricultural Company, 



77 

Int. 15. — Taking a tract lying between the two rivers 
named, and extending from Puget's Sound back to the 
timber, near to the Cascade Mountains, so as to include 
(160,000) acres, at what price per acre would you fix its 
value, in gold coin, excluding the improvements ? 

Ans. — The prairie portion I would value at about $1.25 
per acre. That portion of the timber lying east of the !N"k- 
qually Plains I consider has little or no market value. That 
portion of the timber immediately on Puget's Sound I am 
not sufficiently well acquainted with it to fix a value on it. 
Int. 16. — Describe the soil of the prairie portion. 
Ans. — It is almost entirely gravelly prairie, only fit for 
pasturage, though there are here and there small tracts large 
enough for gardens, or small fields of very rich lands. 

Int. 17. — -Is there any material difference between the 
character of the prairie lands lying within three miles of 
Puget's Sound and those extending further to the eastward? 
Ans. — The nature seems to me to be pretty much the 
same all over the plains, though the best grass grows on the 
eastern portion. 

Int. 18. — -Would men passing along the road from the 
Kisqually river to Fort Ki squally, where Mr. Huggins re- 
sides, thence around by Lake Sequalitchew, down to Steila- 
coom, and then back to Mr. Huggins's, by the road leading 
from Steilacoom, to Olympia, pass over, and be able to see 
an average quality of these plains? 

Ans. — I think he would be able to see nearly, though not 
quite an average quality of the land. But from the fact of 
the land being more closely pastured on this portion of the 
claim, a stranger would be more unfavorably impressed than 
he would be with that portion lying to the eastward. 

Int. 19. — State, if you know, whether the Company's 
cattle on the Kisqually Plains were tame, or otherwise, in 
1851, 1852, and 1853? 

Ans. — I never knew much about the Company's cattle ; I 
saw some cattle on the plains, which I understood to be the 
Company's cattle, which were wild ; I saw others about the 
fort that were tame. 



• 78 

Int. 20. — Do you know whether or not these wild cattle 
were considered dangerous to travelers on foot by people 
living in the vicinity ? (Objected to by counsel for the Com- 
pany as irrelevant and immaterial.) 

Ans. — I did not consider them dangerous, having had some 
experience with Spanish cattle in Oregon ; I do not think the 
people living on the plains considered them dangerous. 

Cross-examined by Frank Clark, Esq., for the Company. 

Int. 1. — Have you a general acquaintance with the coun- 
try lying between Monticello, near the mouth of the Cowlitz 
river, and Olympia, at the head of Puget's Sound? 

Ans. — I have, especially with that portion lying along the 
public road. 

Int. 2. — Is there any prairie or grazing land, of any extent, 
between the points designated in the first interrogatory, ex- 
cept that lying along the present public highway or line of 
travel between them ? 

Ans. — The different highways between the two points 
designated touch nearly all of the large prairies or grazing 
land ; there are smaller prairies not far remote from those 
different highways. 

Int. 3. — Designate the different highways, with the amount 
of agricultural and grazing lands lying along and in the im- 
mediate vicinity of each. 

Ans. — Over that portion of the country lying and being 
in Thurston county, there are three highways all of which 
run, to a great extent, through open grazing country. [In] 
that portion of the country lying and being in Lewis county 
there are two main highways ; one of which is known as a 
military road, runs mostly through a timbered country, the 
other, known as the old highway or Hudson's Bay road, 
runs, to a great extent, through a prairie country, one of 
those prairies being the large prairie known as the Cowlitz 
prairie. That portion of the country lying in Cowlitz county 
has only one main highway at present; formerly, there was 
a Hudson's Bay trail on the east or left bank of the Cowlitz 



79 

river, both of which run through a timbered country, run- 
ning through Thurston county. Three-fourths of the coun- 
try on the stage road is prairie ; two-thirds of the country on 
the middle road. is prairie, and about one-half of the country 
on the Black river road is prairie, as near as I can approxi- 
mate. I suppose there are from twenty-two thousand to 
twenty-six thousand acres of prairie land lying along these 
roads. On the old highway, or Hudson's Bay road, in Lewis 
county, I suppose there are from eight thousand to eleven 
thousand acres of rich prairie land. On the Military road 
there are about five thousand acres of rich prairie land. On 
the right bank of the Cowlitz river, at Monticello, in Cow- 
litz county, there may be six or seven hundred acres of prai- 
rie land ; though immediately in that vicinity there is a lar- 
ger extent of open bottom land that overflows. 

Int. 4. — What amount of prairie laud, adapted to the 
growth of grain and timothy, or clover, and valuable for 
grazing, in your judgment, is there in the counties of Cow- 
litz, Lewis, and Thurston, all told ? 

Ans. — I do not know of there being more than six or 
eight hundred acres of any prairie land, all of wdiich is of 
the best quality, in Lewis county ; I suppose there are from 
fourteen thousand to seventeen thousand acres of clear prairie 
land, nearly all of which is free from gravel, and the best 
quality prairie land known to this country; in Thurston 
county there are from twenty-two thousand to twenty-six 
thousand acres of open prairie land, nearly all of which is 
of the poorer gravelly kind known to this country. 

Int. 5. — Are not all the lands suitable for agriculture and 
valuable for pasturage in these counties now fully occupied 
by settlers and are not all the pasture lands full}', if not 
overstocked ? 

Ans. — The open prairie lands in Thurston county are 
nearly all owned by individuals, and pretty much fully 
stocked. In Lewis county a large portion of the prairie 
land is owned by individuals, but is not stocked to its fullest 
Capacity. All of the dry prairie lands in Cowlitz county, 



80 

known to me, are owned by individuals, and are fully 
stocked. 

Int. 6. — Do not British Columbia, Vancouver's Island, and 
dependencies, and the various Government and other vessels 
visiting the respective localities and the waters of Puget de- 
pend, to a great extent, for supplies of fresh butter, eggs, 
poultry, vegetables, and other like necessaries upon that part 
of "Washington Territory lying north of the Cowlitz river ? 

Ans. — The western portion of British Columbia, Van- 
couver's Island, and the vessels trading to those countries and 
to Puget's Sound, afford a very good market for the articles 
named in the question. 

Int. 7.— Are these different articles, referred to in the last 
interrogatory, produced by this section of country in suffi- 
cient quantities to supply the local markets and these other 
demands for the same ? 

Ans. — This section of country is capable of producing a 
full supply of articles mentioned to meet the demands of 
our local market ; but, for want of enterprise in our people, 
a full supply is not produced, although good prices are always 
offered. 

Int. 8. — Do not British Columbia, Vancouver's Island, and 
those various vessels depend almost solely upon Washington 
Territory and Oregon for their supplies of fresh meats ? 

Ans. — They do. 

Int. 9. — Does the amount of beef, mutton, and pork raised 
in that portion of Washington Territory-lying north of the 
Cowlitz river, after supplying the local demands, have a sur- 
plus that can be stated as more than one-third of the amount 
to supply these other markets ? 

Ans. — I am not able to answer the question. 

Int. 10. — State what, in your judgment, the proportion of 
surplus beef, mutton, and pork, raised in this country after 
supplying the local demands, is, of the whole amount 
shipped from the different points of shipment on Puget's 
Sound, to supply these other markets. 

Ans. — I am unable to answer the question. 

Int. 11. — Are the lands referred to in the last two inter- 



81 

rogatories that are available for agriculture or for stock-rais- 
ing, if well cultivated and fully stocked, capable of producing 
such supplies as are hereinbefore enumerated, in sufficient 
quantities to supply the local and these other markets for 
the same? 

Ans. — I believe they are. 

Int. 12. — Are not large quantities of beef cattle, sheep, and 
hogs, yearly driven from the State of Oregon to supply a de- 
mand of British Columbia, Vancouver's Island, and these 
vessels, with meats, which this country has failed to produce ? 

Ans. — Yes. 

InL 13. — How is stock generally taken from Oregon to the 
respective markets ? 

Ans. — For Western British Columbia and the other mar- 
kets named in the question, the cattle are driven from Ore- 
gon overland to Puget's Sound, and thence taken by water 
to Victoria and other places where wanted. Stock, here 
mentioned, is driven over the highways in Cowlitz, Lewis, 
and Thurston counties mentioned and described in my 
former answer. 

Int. 14. — 'Commencing with the year 1858, please give me 
your judgment on the amount of stock so annually brought 
from tbe State of Oregon to Puget's Sound for shipment to 
these respective markets ? 

Ans. — I am not able to fix upon the exact number fur- 
nished by this route, though I am of the opinion the mar- 
kets mentioned were almost entirely supplied by means of 
this route. 

Int. 15. — What length of time does it take to drive stock 
from Monticello to the vicinity of points of shipment on Pu- 
get's Sound ? 

Ans. — I would say from seven to ten days. 

Int. 16. — Is it not a matter of necessity tp pasture or feed 
said stock in the vicinity of points of shipment, for a consid- 
erable length of time, before the same is slaughtered and 
shipped, or shipped alive to supply the various markets re- 
ferred to in former interrogatories ? 

Ans. — Yes; cattle dealers while driving their cattle over 
7 P 



82 

said route, and whilst waiting to ship them to the various 
markets, are necessarily compelled to feed or graze them. I 
"believe that some of the large cattle dealers always keep 
some such stock on hand, in readiness to be shipped as the 
demand in the various markets require. 

Int. 17. — Are not a large proportion of these cattle unfit 
for immediate butchering when brought to the immediate 
point of shipment, and do not cattle dealers generally there 
graze or feed them for a considerable length of time to pre- 
pare them for market ? 

Ans. — Yes ; I believe that such is the case. 

Int. 18. — Since the year 1858, has there not been a demand 
for all or more pasture lands than are to be found in the vi- 
cinity of these several points of shipment on Puget's Sound? 

Ans. — I believe that often, if not generally, there has been 
such demand. 

Int. 19. — Have not the pasture lands referred to in the 
last interrogatory, together with the stock of the residents 
and settlers, and these stock dealers, been fully, if not over- 
stocked since 1858 ? 

Ans. — I believe that the pasture lands, lying in the vicin- 
ity of the shipping ports on Puget's Sound, have been 
stocked to their full capacity since the year 1858. 

Int. 20. — Has there not been, since 1858, a local demand 
in this section of country for much more hay and grain than 
is produced in it? 

Ans. — I think there has been a fair demand for what hay 
and grain that has been produced in the country. 

Int. 21. — Are not large amounts of hay, chopped, and 
other feed, annually shipped from California to Vancouver's 
Island, British Columbia, and Puget's Sound, to supply the 
demand for the same, over and above the amount produced 
in this country ? 

Ans. — I am not well informed as to what importations 
Vancouver's Island and British Columbia makes from Cali- 
fornia ; but I believe the large milling companies on Puget's 
Sound import most of their supplies of the kind mentioned 
from California. 



83 

Int. 22, — Whence is the greater part of the wheat ob- 
tained that is ground at the Port Gamble, Seattle and Turn- 
Water grist-mills ? 

Ans. — I believe a large portion is brought from Cali- 
fornia. 

Int. 23. — What is the price of freight on hay, feed and 
grain, from San Francisco to these points ? 

Ans. — I do not know ; I have heard the merchants say 
that they paid from six to eight dollars per ton for bringing 
them goods. 

Int. 24. — Since 1858, what has been the price of pastur- 
age, in this vicinity, per week, for sheep, horned cattle and 
horses ? 

Ans. — I do not know as to the exact price per week ; I 
rented one pasture myself, of about two hundred acres, I 
think, for $200 in coin, for the season ; the summer had 
partially gone. This was the ordinary gravelly prairie of the 
country, and was somewhat set in sorrel. This, I think, 
was during the summer and fall of 1863. 

Int. 25. — Is the prairie part of the Company's claim called 
Cowlitz Farm well adapted to the production of grain and 
the various grasses ? 

Ans. — As I understand it, the prairie portion of that claim 
consists of the very best quality of upland prairie land 
known to this country, and will produce good crops of the 
kind mentioned in the question. 

Int. 26. — What amount [of] timothy hay, if- properly culti- 
vated, will the prairie part of the land called the Cowlitz 
Farm annually yield per acre ? 

Ans. — I could not say as to the exact amount, but I believe 
it will produce equally as fine crops of hay as the richest 
upland prairies of Illinois, where I resided before coming 
here. 

Int. 27. — Since 1858, what has been the average price of 
good timothy hay per ton in Lewis County ? 

Ans. — I am not well informed as to the price of hay during 
the whole time mentioned; last year my agent sold a small 
quantity, for myself, at $10 per ton, and this year he writes 



84 

me that he can sell some sixty tons, that I have there, at $8 
per ton. 

Int. 28. — Since that time, what has been the. average price 
per bushel for wheat, oats, and barley ? 

Ans. — I do not know. 

Int. 29. — Since the same time, what has been the average 
price per pound of beef, pork, and mutton? 

Ans. — I do not know. 

Int. 30. — What quantity of sheep, cattle, and horses will 
the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company's claim, consisting 
of the prairie land lying between the Puyallup and l^isqually 
rivers in Pierce county, annually afford pasturage for ? 

Ans. — I do not know the precise number. 

Int. 31. — Is it necessary to give salt to stock pasturing 
upon this tract of land, having access, as they do, to the salt 
marshes and salt water ? 

Ans. — I think it is necessary fur cattle to have salt ; and 
this tract being a large one, the most of it would be so re- 
mote from salt water that, in my opinion, it would be neces- 
sary to salt them. 

Int. 32. — What number of horned cattle would the 200 
acres of land, rented by you during the year 1863, annually 
afford good pasturage for? 

Ans. — Mr. Coulter, who rented the field, told me [he] would 
put about eighty head of beef cattle in it, and that they would 
consume all the grass therein for that season in about six 
weeks or two months. 

Int. 33. — Did this pasture, rented by you for $200 in gold 
coin, for the year 1863, contain only the natural grasses of 
the country, and was there the necessary supply of water 
in it for the stock? 

Ans. — It contained only the natural grasses of the country, 
and was well supplied with water. 

Int. 34. — Would the stock pasturing upon the lands of the 
Company in Pierce county, lying next to the salt marshes, 
or shores of the Sound, require to be given any salt from 
one year's end to the other ? 

Ans. — The shore of the Sound being skirted with timber, 



85 

I think it would be necessary to salt the cattle, though on 
this subject I am not well informed. 

Int. 35. — Are not the timber lands upon this tract neces- 
sary for shelter for stock during the storms of fall and winter 
seasons, and do they not afford valuable pasturage during 
the same period, and are they not also valuable as a summer 
range, being covered, as they are, with pea-vine rushes and 
the coarse grasses ? 

Ans. — I have noticed on the Nisqually Plains scattering 
timber, which I think is very useful in protecting stock pas- 
turing on those plains. I do not know as to the value of 
the pea-vine pasturage in the densely timbered tracts sur- 
rounding the plains. I believe that at certain seasons of the 
year, in this country, stock running at large leave the open 
country and seek the timber to get forage ; and I presume 
that stock running on Msqually Plains do the same. 

Int. 36. — During your residence in this country, has not 
.this tract of land, belonging to the Company in Pierce 
County, afforded such pasturage for stock as to render it 
unnecessary to feed them from one year's end to another? 

Ans. — I have resided in this country some fifteen years, 
and during that time there have been many winters when 
it would not be necessary to feed stock running on those 
plains. 

Int. 37. — Since the year 1856, what has been the average 
of sheep per head in this vicinity? 

Ans. — I do not know precisely; I have heard of sheep 
selling for as high as six dollars per head, by the wholesale, 
and I have known one drove sold for two dollars per head; 
I think that about $5 per head would be the average price 
up to 1863; they have fallen a little since. 

Int. 38. — From 1856 to 1863, what has been the average 
price per head of good milch cows, yearlings, two, three, 
and four-year old heifers and steers, that were fit for beef, 
and what has been the average value of good work oxen 
during the same period? 
' Ans.— I cannot say as to the average price of stock cattle; 



86 

work oxen have nearly always sold readily for from one 
hundred dollars to two hundred and fifty dollars per yoke. 

Int. 39. — "What proportion of the stock shipped to supply 
the different markets in the foregoing interrogatories re- 
ferred to, has been shipped from Steilacoom, a town-site on 
the Company's claim in Pierce county? 

Ans. — I do not know precisely, but I think that nearly all 
have been shipped from the two ports of Steilacoom and 
Olympia. 

Int. 40. — Is not the frontage, or points of the frontage of 
this claim, very valuable as a point or points for such and 
other shipments ? 

Ans. — I think Steilacoom is probably the most convenient 
point to ship stock from on the Sound; how valuable it is 
I do not know. " 

Int. 41. — Are not the timber lands on the Company's 
claim, called the Cowlitz Farm, of great value to a person 
or company owning the same, for fencing, fire-wood, and 
building purposes, and as affording winter and summer 
range, and shelter for stock? 

Ans. — In that portion of the country there is such an over 
supply of timber, that I do not consider it very valuable as 
timber, and I consider it rather as a nuisance, as a general 
thing; I am not well acquainted with the timbered portion 
of the Company's Cowlitz claim. 

Int. 4:2. — While you were at Nisqually, have you not fre- 
quently seen the Company's men driving cattle in large 
quantities into a corral on the beach, near where you had 
your office, that were shipped to Victoria and other places? 

Ans. — I have. 

Int. 43. — What is the extent of Dominick prairie, situate 
on the Company's claim, In Pierce county, and what is the 
description of its soil ? 

Ans. — At a rough guess, I would say it consists of 1,000 
acres and over; the soil is of a sandy nature, and much better 
for pasturage than the average of the plains, in my opinion. 

Int. 44. — Is it not also valuable for purposes of general 
agriculture, when properly cultivated? 



87 

Ans.—As to that, I am not well informed. 

Int. 45. — Are there not large tracts, consisting of thou- 
sands of acres, in different localities on the Msqually Plains, 
of a mixture, in varying proportions, of black vegetable 
mould and sand, all of which, by skillful cultivation, could 
be made to yield fair grain crops, in rotation with root crops 
and grasses ? 

Ans. — As to the question, generally, I am not well in- 
formed, and cannot answer; but I do know of one tract of 
land of the description mentioned in the question, consisting 
of some two or three hundred acres, known as the Gravelle 
claim, which produces good crops of wheat and other grain. 

Int. 46. — Do you not know that a, large quantity of land, 
on and surrounding the Indian reservation, upon the Com- 
pany's claim in Pierce county, is to be found of like quality 
to that of Doniinick prairie ? 

Ans. — I think that portion of the reservation lying on 
what is known as Douglas river, and in that vicinity, is of a 
sandy nature, and much like the soil of Dominick prairie. 

Int. 47. — Do you not know that there is a notable pro- 
portion of gravel in the richest tracts of land at Muck and 
other points on the iSTisqually Plains, and that there is great 
diversity in the quality of the gravelly soils, there being 
some in the low, moist basins, susceptible of the highest 
cultivation? . 

Ans. — I have at Muck and Tlitlow, and other points on 
the plains, seen very good crops growing in a rich black soil, 
very much mixed with gravel. 

Int. 48. — Are you acquainted with the claim or tract of 
land at present occupied by Chief Justice C. C. Hewitt? 

Ans. — I am. 

Int. 49. — How does the soil of his place compare with the 
soil of Dominick prairie ? 

Ans. — Judge Hewitt's prairie land is of a sandy nature, 
and for pasturage about of an equal value with Dominick 
prairie, in my opinion. 

Int. 50 — Are the soils of these two localities, in your 
opinion, of like value for agricultural purposes? 



88 

jjis, — I presume they are, though I do not deem either of 
them valuable for that purpose. 

Int. 51. — Do you not know that there are on the Nisqually 
Plains many valuable swamp lands, several of which have 
been drained, and now annually produce large crops of 
timothy hay ? 

Arts. — Of my personal knowledge, I do not know that 
such is the case, though I have heard of several of the 
swamps being drained, and fine crops being obtained there- 
from. I have a personal knowledge of two swamp farms 
that produce good crops of hay and roots. 

Int. 52. — Is not the Company's entire claim in Pierce 
County well watered; and does it not, on this account, have 
a greater value for stock-raising than it otherwise would 
possess ? 

Ans — Said claim is remarkably well watered, and, as stock 
drink water, it is for that reason more valuable. 

Int. 53. — Have not this Company and their agents, since 
you have known them, been very obliging to emigrants, and 
supplied them with necessaries generally when required; 
and did they not, during the Indian war, furnish all such 
supplies as they had that were needed and called for by the 
public authorities? 

Ans — I have always found the agents of the Company 
kind, gentlemany men; and I believe they dealt with set- 
tlers and others on as liberal terms as the American mer- 
chants. As quartermaster and commissary of the volunteers, 
myself and agents had many dealings with Dr. Tolmie, the 
agent of the Company, and we always found him willingto 
sell such supplies as he had. 

Int. 54. — When you came to the country, were not the 
different Indian tribes of "this vicinity greatly under the in- 
fluence and control of the agents of this Company? 

Ans. — From my observation at Nisqually, I am of the 
opinion that Dr. Tolmie had great influence with the Indi- 
ans; and he is the only one of the agents with whom I had 
much to do. 

Int. 55. — In your opinion, did not the agents of this Com- 



89 

pany afford a great protection to the first settlers of this sec- 
tion of country, by the exercise of their influence over the 
different Indian tribes ? 

Arts. — In my opinion, the officers of the Company, being 
educated gentlemen, have always exerted whatever influence 
they might have had with the Indians to protect the whites 
of all nations in the early settlement of the country. 

W. W. Miller. 

Olympia, November 20, 1866. 



Testimony of Frederick A. Clarke. 

Frederick A. Clarke, being first duly sworn, in answer to in- 
terrogatories, deposes as follows: 

Int. 1. — State your age, residence, and occupation. 

Ans. — I am thirty-eight years old; residence in Pierce 
County, "Washington Territory ; by occupation, I am a 
farmer. 

Int. 2. — What is your present official position ? 

Ans.— I am one of the county commissioners of Pierce 
County, and a representative elect to the Legislature. 

Int. 3. — How long, and at what place, have you resided in 
Washington Territory ? 

Ans. — I have resided in Washington Territory since 1852, at 
the Cowlitz; in Lewis county, from 1852 to 1862; and since 
1863, in Pierce County, at Muck, on the Nisqually Plains. 

Int. 4. — What have been your opportunities for knowing 
the market value of land at Cowlitz and its neighborhood, 
and in. Pierce county? 

Ans. — They have been good. I have purchased and sold 
more land in Lewis county than any one else I know of. 

Int. 5. — Are you acquainted with the Puget's Sound Agri- 
cultural Company's claim, known as the Cowlitz Farm, in 
Lewis county ? If so, state when you first saw it. 

Ans. — I first saw it January, 1852, and have known it ever 
since. 

Int. 6. — Who was the Company's agent in charge at that 
place in 1852? 

Ans. — H. K Peers. 



90 

Int. 7. — How long did he remain, and who succeeded 
him ? 

Ans. — He remained, I think, until 1856, and was succeeded 
by William Sinclair. 

Int. 8. — How long did Sinclair remain,. and who succeeded 
him? 

Ans. — He remained until 1859 ; and by Mr. Huggins 
taking charge of the place and putting Mr. Roberts on it. 

Int. 9. — In what condition were the buildings and fencing 
on the place when you "first saw it in 1852 ? 

Ans. — Generally bad; some of the fields were kept up; 
one on the eastern portion of the claim, and one below the 
house to the southwest; also one north of the house; most 
of it, however, was thrown open to the common pasturage. 
The shed barns that were around the place had all rotted 
down but one in the eastern field. The hewed log barn 
near the house was also still standing. The loo; storehouse 
near, and east of the dwelling, was also standing, as well as 
a hewed log stable. The dwelling was a hewed log build- 
ing, as Mr. Peers told me, weather-boarded on tire outside, 
and ceiled and painted, or papered on the inside. Mr. Peers 
told me the under-pinning, or under-logs, were decaying, so 
as to effect the shape of the fire-place and doors. He said 
he would not make any expensive repairs, because the Yan- 
kees were going to get it so soon. The reason why he said 
that, I understood to be that they were jumping every part 
of the claim at the time. 

Int. 10. — "What became of the Company's live-stock and 
trading goods which were at Cowlitz Farm ? 

Ans. — Sinclair turned them over to Mr. Huggins, who re- 
moved them to Nisqually. 

Int. 11. — How much farming was done by the Company's 
agents after 1852, at Cowlitz? 

Ans. — I suppose when I first went to the Cowlitz, perhaps 
there were from 100 to 150 acres in grain; one field of 100 
acres or upwards — might be two hundred — was kept for 
meadow, about half of which, or a little more, would pay for 
cutting. From 1852 to the time of Sinclair leaving, in 1859, 



91 

the farming grew less and less every year. I don't suppose 
there were over twenty-five or thirty acres in grain in 1859. 
In 1858 Sinclair mowevl very little meadow; most of it had 
been turned out to pasture. 

Int. 12. — Do you know of any encouragement being given 
by the Company's agents to settlers on the Cowlitz Farm ? 
If so, state when it was, and by whom. 

Ans.- — I do not know that their agents ever encouraged 
any one, except from hearsay. 

Int. 13. — What did the Company's agents do with the 
rails surrounding the fields which were thrown out to com- 
mon pasture in 1852, and afterwards? 

Ans. — They did nothing with them, but let them lie there; 
after that time they used some of them to repair the other 
fences. 

Int. 14. — "What, according to your best information and 
knowledge, was the market value of good prairie land at 
Cowlitz Farm and vicinity, in 1862, when you left there? 

Ans. — At no time, that I know of, has land sold for more 
than ft.v§ dollars an acre on Cowlitz Prairie or vicinity ; I 
mean by the vicinity Jackson's Prairie, Drew's Prairie, La 
Kamass, and Grand Prairie. I have bought and sold land 
on La Kamass and Cowlitz Prairie, and Grand Prairie, for 
Rye dollars and less. I have sold land here, within the last 
few days, on the Cowlitz Prairie, 115 acres on the prairie, 
and adjoining, for $500 in greenbacks. This piece of land 
is fenced, and has about 500 bearing apple trees. This land 
has a good title, and is not on the Company's claim. 

Int. 15. — About what portion of the whole Cowlitz Prairie 
is covered by the Company's claim of 3,500 acres ? 

Ans. — Something near half, I should think. 

Int. 16. — Are you well acquainted with the Company's 
claim on the JSTisqually Plains, in Pierce County? 

Ans. — I am. 

Int. 17 — What, in your opinion, is that land worth per 
acre, averaging it together ? 

Ans. — Not to exceed one dollar or one dollar and a quarter 
per acre. 



92 

Int. 18. — About what is the present population of Steila- 
coom? 

Ans. — I should not think there would be over 150 to 200, 
including men, women, and children. 

Int. 19. — About what is the present population of Pierce 
County ? '' 

Ans.— I should say from 1,500 to 2,000. 

Int. '20. — Has there been any material variation in the 
market value of land in Washington Territory in the last five 
years; if so, has the tendency been downward or upward? 

Ans. — I don't think there has been any material variation, 
so far as my knowledge goes. 

Cross-examination by Frank Clark , Esq., for the Company. 

Int. 1. — Was not the land recently sold by you encum- 
bered by mortgage or other lien ? If yea, state the amount, 
the length of time it had been so encumbered, and to whom 
the land was sold. 

Ans. — It was encumbered by a judgment amounting to 
about $4,100, and was sold to Gen. W. W. Miller, the judg- 
ment creditor. There were about three and one half sec- 
tions of other land encumbered' by the same judgment. 

Int. 2. — Could you have spared the money to relieve the 
land sold by you from the lien of this judgment, would you 
have sold the same at the prices realized as stated in your 
examination-in-chief ? 

Ans. — I would not have sold it for that price, had they 
not been otherwise encumbered ; I bought it for a home ; I 
was compelled to sell it, or have it sold by the sheriff; and 
preferred to do that rather than to take the chances of a 
forced sale. 

Int. 3. — Do you not think the property so sold of greater 
value than the amount realized by you for it ? 

Ans. — I would not have sold the property for the money, 
if it was not encumbered, and I could have kept it as a 
home. 



93 

Int. 4.— -Before you did consent to sell it for that price, 
did not the purchaser agree within a time stated to re-deed 
the property to you, or your order, upon the payment to him 
of the amount of your indebtedness, with interest? 

Ans. — No; he made no promises previous to the sale. 

Int. 5,— Do you own any land in "Washington Territory ? 

Ans. — £fo. 

Fred. A. Clarke. 

Olympia, November 20, 1866. 



Testimony of E. H. Hewitt. 

M. U. Hewitt, being first duly sworn, deposetb, in answer to 
interrogatories, as follows : 

Int. 1. — State your age, residence, and occupation. 

Ans. — My age is about twenty-seven years; my residence 
is Olympia, Washington Territory; by occupation, I am a 
printer and editor, and publisher of the Pacific Tribune 
newspaper. 

Int. 2. — Were you ever offered any money, or other valu- 
able consideration, by any one connected with the prosecu- 
tion of this claim, to affect the course of } 7 our newspaper, in 
commenting upon such claims? If so, state how much, 
when it was, and by whom. (Objected to by counsel for the 
Company as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.) 

Ans. — I was offered a consideration, but I cannot say that 
it was by a counsel for the Company ; it was in June or 
July, 1865 ; the sum was one hundred dollars, and was by 
Mr. Frank Clark. 

Int. 3. — Is he the same gentleman who now sits in this 
room, acting as the attorney for the Company ? 

Ans. — Yes, sir. 

Cross-examined by Frank Clark, Esq., for the Company. 

Int. 1. — Did not Judge Lander and myself state to you 
before, or about the time you took the hundred dollars, that 



94 

we only wanted your paper to remain silent upon the subject, 
and not to publish inflammatory articles, that would have 
a tendency to prevent men from coming forward and stating 
such facts as were within their knowledge, relating to this 
claim of the Company '( 

Ans. — I had a conversation with Mr. Clark on the subject; 
I had no conversation on the subject with Mr. Lander. I 
had previously published the memorials of the Hudson's 
Bay and Puget's Sound Agricultural Companies; also a 
short article, calling the attention of the public to their 
gigantic demands. Mr. Clark expressed himself as being 
afraid that the papers of the Territory would take a wrong 
course in this matter, and the tender of money was made to 
keep the paper silent from prejudicing the public mind. 

Direct Examination Resumed. 

Int. 1. — Did you accept and keep the money ? 
Ans. — I accepted it, but did not keep it. 

Cross-examination Resumed. 

Int. 1. — Did you not afterwards justify the fears expressed 
to you by publishing articles in your paper, either contrib- 
uted by others, or written by yourself, based upon rumor, and 
not upon testimony, as to the merits of this claim? 

Ans. — I did publish a series of articles on this subject, but 
not to justif} 7 any fears of prejudice. The articles, as I be- 
lieve, were a true history, founded upon fact and evidence, 
and not on rumor. 

Int. 2. — How long have you resided in this country? 

Ans.— Since the fall of 1862. 

Int. 3. — Had you any acquaintance, previous to your 
coming here, with your contributor or contributors, or with 
the affairs of the Companies? 

Ans. — I had no previous acquaintance with the contribu- 
tors of the articles. I had read numerous newspaper arti- 
cles with reference to the Companies. These were about 
the time it was understood the Governmenl of Great Britain 
refused to renew the charter of the Hudson's Bay Company. 



95 

Int. 4. — -Prior to the publication of these several articles, 
have you ever heard or read a single word of sworn testi- 
mony affecting the merits of either of these claims, and have 
you since, except detached parts furnished by the counsel 
of the United States conducting this examination, on this 
coast, in behalf of the Government, to different newspapers 
for publication ? 

Ans. — I had, previous to publishing the articles, read testi- 
mony elicited either before a committee of Parliament, or 
Parliament itself. The Counsel for the United States, con- 
ducting this examination, has never submitted to me any 
fact or evidence on this subject. 

Int. 5. — How long a time did you keep this u filthy lucre" 
in your possession ? 

Ans. — This " root of all evil" was in my hands about forty- 
eight hours. 

Int. 6. — What was the reason assigned in the letter ac- 
companying the return of the money for its being returned ? 

Ans. — I kept no copy of the letter; I think it contained 
two reasons: first, a change in sentiment; second, a change 
in the proprietorship of the establishment. 

Int. 7. — Did it not state, as the reason for its return, the 
numerous objections made by partisan friends and would-be 
contributors to your paper of articles urging reasons against 
the favorable consideration of these claims of these compa- 
nies? 

Ans. — I think I made use of no such terms. 

Int. 8. — Were not such reasons among those that influ- 
enced you in making such return ? 

Ans: — If they were not expressed in the letter, they would 
be of no value in this case, and cannot be admitted. 

Int. 9. — Has the Hon. Carey Johnson, the attorney now 
present on the part of the United States, conducting this ex- 
amination, recently conversed with you in reference to the 
testimony you would give if examined on this subject? 

Ans. — No, he has not; Mr. Johnson simply informed me 
that he wanted me as a witness. 

Int. 10. — To what person or persons, before this examina- 



96 

tion of to-day, have you communicated the facts, or any of 
them, hereinbefore stated? 

Ans. — I cannot say. 

Int. 11. — Is it usual for you to communicate generally to 
persons the business transactions of your office ? 

Ans.— Not to persons unconcerned. 

R. H. Hewitt. 



Testimony of H. L. Chapman. . 

H. I. Chapman being first duly sworn, deposeth, in answer 
to interrogatories, as follows : 

Int. 1. — State your age, residence, and occupation. 

Ans. — I am thirty-five years old. ; my residence is Olym- 
pia, W. T. ; my occupation is teaming. 

Int. 2. — How long have jou. resided in Washington Terri- 
tory ? 

JLrcs.— Since the fall of 1852. 

Int. 3. — Have you ever resided on or near the Company's 
claim known as the Nisqually Plains? If so, state during 
what years. 

Ans. — The first claim I located was in Pierce county, on 
Ni squally claim, in January, 1853, where I resided about 
two months. While there, I w r as served with a written no- 
tice by Mr. Huggins to abandon the claim. 

Int. 4. — Where then did you remove ? 

Ans. — I removed from this claim to near Steilacoom, 
where I remained two or three months, engaged at Mr. 
Chambers's saw-mill. Thence I removed to the Segnali- 
chew Mill, where I remained, perhaps, four months. Then 
I located another claim, near the mouth of the Nisqually 
river, on the right bank, where I remained about one year. 
From thence I removed to Thurston county, where I have 
since resided. 

Int. 5. — Did you, at any time, have any agreement with 
Dr. W. F. Tolmie, agent of the Puget Sound Company, 



97 

about the killing of the Company's cattle on the Nisqually 
Plains ? If so, state where it was, and the terms of the 
agreement. 

Ans.— I made arrangements with the Doctor to kill some 
cattle for my own use in the summer of 1854, I think, for 
which I was to pay six dollars per head. He said I could 
kill for my own use, but tfot abuse. 

Int. 6.— What other agreement, if any, did you make 
with any other agent or employe of the Company about 
beef or beef cattle? * 

Ans, — When I went on to the first claim, I contracted for 
my beef of one the employes, Mr. Dean, at seven cents per 
pound. 

Int. 7. — Were the Company's cattle tame or wild during 
your residence in Pierce county ? 

Ans. — -They were wild. 

Int. 8. — -Was any objection made by the Company's agents 
to your holding the claim taken by you near the mouth of 
the Nisqually river ? 

Ans. — There was none. 

Int. 9. — Were you living on this claim when you effected 
the arrangement with Dr. Tolmie, before spoken of? 

Ans. — I was. 

Int. 10.— -Did the Company keep up their various enclo- 
sures on the JSTisqually Plains after 1852 ? If not, state what 
they did with all, or any of them. 

Ans. — -I have known a good many pieces of ground, the 
cultivation of which was abandoned, and the fencing re- 
moved to other tracts of land. 

Cross-examination by Frank Clark, Esq. , for the Company.. 

Int. 1. — When you first came to the country, how much of 
a family did you have dependent upon you ? 

Ans. — A wife. 

Int. 2. — Had you not, before you located on the last-named 
place, in Pierce county, received a notice not to settle upon 
their claim ? 
8 P 



98 

Ans. — I never received but one notice, and I think that 
that was a notice to abandon the claim I was then occupying, 
only. 

Int. 3. — Did you not see a notice in a newspaper, in the 
year 1853 or 1854, describing the boundaries of the Com- 
pany's claim in Pierce county, and warning persons against 
settling upon the same ? 

Ans. — I could not say that the boundaries were described, 
but am sure I saw a notice warning persons against settling 
on the Company's claim. 

Int. 4. — In how large numbers, during the year 1854, did 
the Company's cattle come around your house and door ? 

Ans. — I have seen them in companies of from ten to fifty. 
They came by my place going to a salt marsh or tide prairie. 

Question by W. C. Johnson, Esq. 

Int. 1. — How near were you able to get to the wild cattle 
of the Company, when they saw you, say as early as the 
spring of 1853 ? 

Aiis. — The cattle would come out of the timber to feed on 
the prairie. When any person would approach them, espe- 
cially on foot, before he would get within gun-shot of them, 
they would seem as if they were going to run at him, and 
after standing and looking at him for a time, they would run 
for the woods. 

Int. 2. — Were you ever attacked by any of these cattle ? If 
so, state what you did, and who were with you. 

Ans. — There were two gentlemen with me. Once in sum- 
mer of 1854, after night, we were travelling on the plains 
from the Segualichew Mill to my land claim, near the mouth 
of the Nisqually river. .There was a band of cattle sur- 
rounded us, bellowed considerable, and closed in the circle, 
and we went up a tree. We were kept up the tree about, 
an hour, I should think, having no dog or fire-arms. 



99 



Cross-examination Resumed. 

fnl i._Did this band of cattle close in upon your party 
In good military order, and with military precision, and 
when you descended the tree and left, was any flank move* 
ment attempted by them ? 

Ans. — I do not think there were any military tactics ex- 
hibited in their approach, and we retired in good order, they 
having changed their base first. 

H. L. Chapman. 

Olympia, W. T., November 20, 1866. 



Territory of Washington, 1 
County of Thurston. J 

I, Andrew J. Moses, a notary public in and for said Terri- 
ritory, residing in said county, do hereby certify that the 
foregoing depositions of C. C. Hewitt, W. W. Miller, Fred. 
A. Clark, R. H. Hewitt, and H. L. Chapman, were taken 
before me at my office in Olympia, in said county, on the 
16th, 17th, 19th, and 20th days of November, A. D. 1866, 
in pursuance of a verbal agreement made in my presence 
by W. Carey Johnson, Esq., in behalf of the United States, 
and Frank Clark, Esq., in behalf of the Puget's Sound Ag- 
ricultural Company, and reduced to writing by me, or in my 
presence and under my direction, by persons agreed upon 
between the parties. 

I further certify that to each of said witnesses, before his 
examination, I administered the following oath : 

" You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give 
in the matter of the claim of the Puget's Sound Agricul- 
tural Company against the United States shall be the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God." 
, I further certify that said depositions were each carefully 



100 

read to or by said witnesses, after the same were reduced to 
writing, and then signed by them respectively. 
In witness whereof I have hereto set my hand and affixed 
my notarial seal, at my office in Olympia, the 
L L - S -J twentieth day of November, A. D. 1866. 

Andrew J. Moses^ 
Notary Public, Washington Territory. 



BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION 



HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGKICUL- 
TURAL COMPANIES CLAIMS. 



In the matter of the Claim of the PugeVs Sound Agricultural 
Company vs. the United States. 

Depositions of witnesses taken in behalf of the United 

States. 

Testimony of William P. Dougherty. 

William P. Dougherty 'being first duly sworn, deposeth, in an- 
swer to interrogatories, as follows : 

Int. 1. — What is your age, residence, and occupation ? 

Ans. — My age is about fifty years ; I reside in Pierce 
county, Washington Territory ; I am a farmer by profession. 

Int. 2. — How long have you resided in Pierce county ? 

Ans. — Since 1851. 

Int. 3. — Do you reside upon the land claimed by the Pu- 
get's Sound Agricultural Company, known as the Nisqually 
Plains ? 

Ans.— I presume I do. 

Int. 4. — What official position do you hold in Pierce 
county ? 

Ans. — Probate Judge. 

Int. 5. — Are you well acquainted with the Nisqually Plains, 
generally ? 

Ans. — I am not generally ; I have passed from Nisqually 
bridge to Fort Steilacoom ; I have passed from my house to 



102 

Andrew Burge's ; I have been from Andrew Burge's to Van- 
buren's claim ; I have been from my house, by the way of 
Gravelly Lake, to Fort Msqually. 

Int. 6. — On what part of the plains is your residence ? 

Am. — I live about three miles east of Fort Steilacoom, be- 
tween that and the Puyallup river. 

Int. 7. — On what part of the plains does Andrew Burge 
reside ? 

Am. — He lives at the place known as Muck, about ten or 
twelve miles from Steilacoom. 

Int. 8. — Describe the soil of the Nisqually Plains, so far 
as you are acquainted with them. 

Am. — They are inclined to be gravelly, sandy, rocky in 
some parts; some small isolated valleys are inclined to be 
black loamy soil. 

Int. 9. — Taking the whole tract togetber, at what price per 
acre would you fix the value of this land, so far as you are 
acquainted with it, without regard to improvements ? 

Arts. — Seventy-five cents an acre in coin. 

Int. 10. — About what proportion, in your judgment, is at 
all suited to purposes of general agriculture? 

Am. — Some lands become exhausted in one year's cultiva- 
tion ; two-thirds are fit for general agriculture. 

Int. 11. — Does this two-thirds include the land which you 
say is exhausted by one year's cultivation ? 

Am. — No, sir. 

Int. 12. — In what condition were the Company's cattle, as 
to tameness or wildness, when you came here, in 1851 ? 

Am. — They were very wild when I first came to the 
country. 

Cross-examination by Frank Clark, Esq., for the Company. 

Int. 1. — Describe the prairie, and the extent of the prairie 
where you live ? 

Am. — I live on what is called the Round Prairie ; some 
portion of it is sandy, some gravelly, and some rocky, sur- 
rounded with timber ; a large swamp on one side of it. I sup- 



103 

pose there must be at least three or four hundred acres of 
land in the prairie. 

Int. 2. — How many settlers are there on Round Prairie ? 

Ans. — There are three, at present. 

Int. 8. — -Is there any valuable swamp land surrounding 
this prairie? 

Ans. — I suppose about four hundred and sixty acres in a 
bodj T , that might be made valuable by a large outlay in 
draining and cleaning and ditching and ploughing in proper 
time, which is the fall of the year; there is about twenty 
acres of this swamp partly improved at present. 

Int. 4. — What would it cost to properly drain and fit this 
body of swamp land lor cultivation ? 

Ans. — About twenty dollars per acre ? 

Int. 5. — How much prairie land have you enclosed ? 

Ans. — About one hundred acres, I think. 

Int. 6. — How much of this hundred acres have you under 
cultivation ? 

Ans. — Seventeen acres in wdieat, two acres in an orchard. 

Int. 7. — When you first came to the country, what num- 
ber of cattle and sheep were occasionally grazed upon this 
prairie by the Company ? 

Ans. — 'They were remarkably wild, and it was almost im- 
possible for any one to count them ; I don't remember of 
seeing any sheep there when I first came to that place, or 
afterwards. 

Int. 8. — Did John Bradley settle upon this prairie, aud if 
yea, when and how long did he reside there ? 

Ans. — He did; came there the same time that I did, and 
remained there six or seven years, or longer. 

Int. 9. — Do you not know that the Company complained 
of John Bradley on account of his taking rails used by the 
Company for sheep folds, and taken by him to fence lands 
for his own use, without their permission ? 

Ans. — I don't know of any complaint, of my own know- 
ledge. 

Int. 10. — Do you not know that Bradley enclosed and cul- 



104 - 

tivatecl lands upon this prairie that had been richly manured 
by folding of the Company's sheep thereupon? 

Arts. — I do not know of my own knowledge, but I do 
know that he enclosed lands and cultivated them. 

Int. 11. — Do you not know that he used old rails, found 
there, belonging to the Company, for enclosing these lands? 

Ans. — I do not know. 

Int. 12. — "When you first came to the country, were there 
not often five hundred and more head of cattle on the Round 
Prairie, and did they not often trouble your enclosures? 

Ans. — There were apparently large droves of cattle pass- 
ing through and feeding upon this prairie ; I do not recollect 
distinctly about their bothering us. 

Int. 13. — Had you lived in Oregon previous to settling 
upon this prairie ? 

Ans. — I lived in Oregon, having emigrated there in 1843, 
where I lived until I came here, with the exception of five 
or six months that I was absent in California. 

Int. 14. — Were there not, during your residence in Ore- 
gon, large herds of Spanish cattle scattered over different 
sections of the country ? 

Ans. — I don't know. 

Int. 15. — Is not all of Eound Prairie enclosed, and are 
not the lands between this and your residence so enclosed 
and fenced as to render the travel a much longer distance 
than formerly, and are there not many thousand acres of 
prairie enclosed between your residence and that of A. J. 
Burge ? 

Ans. — Yes. 

W. P. Dougherty. 

Steilacoom, "W. T., November 22, 1866. 



Testimony of A. J. Burge. 

A. J. Burge being first duly sworn, deposeth, in answer to in- 
terrogatories, as follows : 
Int. 1. — How old are you, where do you live, and what do 
you do for a living ? 



105 

Ans. — I am thirty-seven years old ; I live at Muck, in 
Pierce county, Washington Territory ; I farm and raise stock 
for a living. 

Int. 2. — How long have you lived at Muck? 

Ans. — Since November, 1854. 

Int. 3. — Do you know of any contract between Dr. Tol- 
mie, agent of the Puget's Sound Company, and any other 
person about the killing of the Company's cattle, on the ISTis- 
qually Plains ? If so, state all you know about it, and the 
price agreed upon per head. 

Ans. — I belive I do. In 1853 I worked on the Cascade 
road, under E. J. Allen. Mr. Allen sent me to kill a wild 
bullock. He told me he had arrangements with Dr. Tol- 
mie. He told me to kill a fat one, not larger than two 
mules could pack. He said he was to pay $5 per head. I 
came into the plains according to Allen's order. I found a 
band of cattle in the oak grubs. I selected such an one as 
I thought would be a load for the two mules, and shot it 
down. About two weeks afterwards I killed another; I also 
killed for the same purpose in 1854. In conversation with 
Dr. Tolmie, afterwards, he told me, yes, he had authorized 
Mr. Allen to kill what he wanted for use on the road, at $5 
per head. 

Int. 4. — Did Dr. Tolmie, at that time, or at any other time, 
say anything to you about emigrants having leave to kill 
cattle ? If so, state what he said. 

Ans. — At the same time of the conversation about Allen, 
Dr. Tolmie said some of the emigrants were coming in poor 
and needy, and if they would pay $5 per head in advance, 
they could kill a few for their own use. 

Int. 5. — Did Dr. Tolmie, at any time, make you any offer 
of the privilege of killing cattle ? If so, state when and 
what it was. 

Ans. — In the winter of 1854, Dr. Tolmie overtook me as I 
was coming into Steilacoom, and joked me about my having 
bought a long rifle gun. He said he had given Andrew 
Byrd permission to kill cattle for his own use, at $5 per 



106 

head, and it would look more respectable if I would do the 
same. 

Int. 6. — Did he tell you of any other persons, than those 
you have named, that he had made such an arrangement 
with? 

Ans. — Not at that, or any time, that I remember. 

Int. 7. — Did Dr. Tolmie ever tell you of any arrangement 
he had made with persons to kill wild cattle for him on the 
shares ? If so, state who the persons were, and the nature 
of the arrangement. 

Ans. — He told me he had made a bargain with George 
Shazer and MacAlister, to kill cattle for the Company at 
a stated price per pound; I think at four cents per pound 
delivered, but not on shares. 

Int. 8. — Are you well acquainted with the lands generally 
on the Nisqually Plains? 

Ans. — I am. 

Int. 9. — Taking them together, at what price per acre, in 
gold coin, would you fix their value, without the improve- 
ments ? 

Ans. — I don't believe, on a twelve month's notice, they 
could be sold for Government price. 

Int. 10. — So far as you know about the killing of the 
Company's cattle, was it done principally by American set- 
tlers, or by the Company's servants discharged, or other- 
wise? 

Ans. — The greater number of cattle that were killed, to 
my knowledge, were killed by persons who were or had been 
in the Company's service. 

Cross-examination by Frank Clark, Counsel for the Company. 

Int. 1. — When did you first come to Pierce county ? 

Ans. — In June, 1852. 

Int. 2. — Where had you resided immediately previous to 
coming here ? 

Ans. — In Yamhill county, Oregon. 

Int. 3. — State the length of time 3^011 -resided in Oregon, 
and the parts of country therein with which you were ac- 
quainted ? 



107 

Ans. — I resided in Oregon between three and four years ; 
I had a general acquaintance with the Willamette Valley, 
but resided principally at Portland and in Yamhill county. 

Int. 4.— What extent of prairie lands were there in Yam- 
hill county fit for purposes of general agriculture? 

Ans. — I think between a half and two-thirds; I do not 
know the number of acres in the county. 

Int. 5. — In your judgment, is there 80,000 acres of such 
land in Yamhill county; I mean by that prairie land, fit for 
agricultural purposes ? 

Ans. — I would suppose there was. 

Int. 6.— What quantity of land, of the description referred 
to in the last interrogatory, in your opinion, was there in 
Yamhill county unoccupied when you left there? 

Ans. — All of a third. 

Int. 7. — Were there not large quantities of land, of the 
description last mentioned, then unoccupied in different 
parts of the Willamette Yalley ? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int. 8. — Were not some herds of stock-cattle of the Spanish 
breed in Yamhill county — not the offspring of milch cows — 
and running on the western hills of the county, wild, and 
difiicult to drive in 1849, 1850, and 1851? 

Ans. — I never struck a band that three men, on horseback, 
could not drive from there to Portland ; my answer refers to 
1850 and 1851. 

Int. 9. — Were not bands of cattle, of the Spanish breed, 
grazed in different parts of the Willamette Yalley, difficult 
to drive ? 

Ans. — I helped to drive some of the worst bands there, 
and found them difficult to start. 

Int. 10. — Were any of the bands of cattle referred to in 
the last two interrogatories drivable by persons on foot ? 

Ans. — I never saw it tried. 

Int. 11. — How large a piece of ground have you enclosed 
on the Company's claim, and now used by you for grazing 
and other purposes? 

Ans. — I don't give the Company credit for having any 



108 

claim; I have from 800 to 1,000 acres under fence, perhaps 
more. 

Int. 12. — Are you acquainted with Isaac Carson, a settler 
upon the Company's claim in Pierce county, Washington 
Territory ? 

Arts. — I know Isaac Carson, of Pierce county, Washington 
Territory. 

Int. 13. — What amount of lands has he enclosed for graz- 
ing, and other purposes, on the Nisqually Plains ? 

Arts. — Two thousand acres or more. 

Int. 14. — What amount of horned cattle would Mr. Car- 
son's enclosed lands annually afford good pasturage for ? 

Ans. — Two hundred and fifty head the year round; I mean 
grown cattle. 

Int. 15. — What kind of "beef and mutton do the pasture 
lands of Msqually Plain at present produce for market ? 

Ans. — Before the plains were over grazed, good quality; 
but now they are over grazed so that we can't get good beef 
but eight months in the year. 

Int. 16. — What proportion of the Msqually Plains are at 
present enclosed ? 

Ans. — About one-fourth, in my opinion. 

Int. 17. — In your judgment, what number of horned 
cattle, what number of sheep, and what number of horses 
are at present grazed upon or fed from the product of the 
Nisqually Plains ? 

Ans. — In all I should think about 12,000 head. 

Int. 18. — What proportion of this number would you say 
were cattle and horses ? 

Ans. — About one-fourth. 

Int. 19. — What is it worth per week to pasture grown 
cattle and horses per head within the enclosures situate 
upon the Msqually Plains ? 

Ans. — One dollar per head per month the year round. 

Int. 20. — In your examination-in-chief you have stated 
that the large portion of Company's cattle killed, to your 
knowledge, were killed by Company's servants, or persons 
formerly in the Company's employ. What proportion of 



109 

these cattle so killed were killed by the Company's servants, 
and for whom were they killed ? 

Ans.—~ The Company's servants, then in their employ, 
killed about the one-twentieth. 

Int. 21.— Had not these persons, mentioned by you as 
former employes of the Company, at the time they killed 
the cattle referred to by you in your former answer, left the 
Company's employment and squatted on claims ; were they 
not American citizens, or declared their intention to become 
such ? 

Ans. — They were not at the time in the Company's em- 
ployment, and resided upon claims on the Nisqually Plains ; 
I cannot state as to their citizenship. 

Int. 22. — State the names of all the persons who, to your 
knowledge, killed Company's cattle that had, prior to such 
killing, been in the Company's employ ? 

Ans.— ^Francis Gavelle, Xavier Latour, Eichard Fiander, 
William Young, George Dean, William Northover, Charles 
Wren. 

Int. 23. — At the time MacAlister and Shazer were killing 
cattle for the company, what was the price per head of good 
milch cows and beef cattle? 

Ans. — A good American milch cow was worth from seventy- 
five to eighty dollars. A good Spanish milch cow was worth 
about fifty dollars. Beef was worth fourteen and fifteen 
cents per pound dressed. 

Int. 24. — How will the beef and mutton raised on the 
Nisqually Plains compare with that raised in the Willamette 
Valley ? 

Ans. — I do not know of any material difference. 

Int. 25. — Have you accumulated means, besides support- 
ing yourself and family, by farming and stock-raising where 
you now reside ? 

Ans. — No ; I have gone down hill. 

Int. 26.— Does this result, in a greater or less degree, from 
the fact that the price of stock has fallen, and from the fact 
that you lost a considerable amount by the felonious taking 
of bad neighbors ? 



no 

Ans. — That includes a part of the causes, but not all ; the 
hard winter was a dead stroke on me. 

Int. 27. — Did you ever kill any cattle of the Company, 
under an agreement with any of its agents, for your own use 
or for sale ? 

Ans. — No, sir. 

A. J. BuRGE. 

Steilacoom, November 22, 1866. 



Testimony of James E. Williamson. 
James JE. Williamson, being duly sworn, deposeth, in answer 
to interrogatories, as follows : 

Int. 1. — Please state your age, residence, and occupation. 

Ans. — I am thirty-six years of age; I reside in Steilacoom, 
Washington Territory ; I am a butcher by trade ; at present 
I am a teamster. 

Int. 2. — When did you first come to Pierce county ? 

Ans. — I came here in October, 1849. 

Int. 3. — Were you ever attacked by any of the Company's 
cattle on the Nisqually Plains ? If so, state when it was, 
and the circumstances. 

Ans. — I was attacked only once by a bull, between where 
the garrison is and Byrd's Mill. I had a Government mus- 
ket; went out fowling to shoot ducks and pheasants. I had 
killed some game, and was returning back to the garrison, 
when a bull came after me, and I got out of his way up a 
tree. The bull started off a short distance, when I fired at 
him with duck shot, hitting him on the hips. After he had 
gotten off some distance, I came down from the tree, and 
made some haste toward the garrison, in the meantime load- 
ing my musket with ball-cartridge. When I had gone some 
distance, and come near to a field, I found the animal was again 
coming after me. I sprang over the fence, and as he charged 
up, I fired, and gave him, as I suppose, a death wound. 

Cross-examination by Frank Clark, for the Company. 

Int. 1. — How were you dressed at this time, when the bull 
pursued you ? 



Ill 

Arts. — I had on fatigue dress of an artillery soldier; I had 
a red silk handerchief tied across my shoulders, and some 
game tied to the end of it. 

Int. 2. — When you came to the county in 1849, did not the 
Company have large numbers of cattle upon the Nisqually 
Plains, and were they not as tame as stock cattle usually are, 
running in so large a tract of country, in such large num- 
bers ? 

Ans. — Yes; there were large numbers of cattle in every 
direction, no matter which way you started; from the. garri- 
son you would see cattle. They were sufficiently tame to 
drive into a corral and yoke up and work them. They were 
large, stout oxen, six or seven years of age, and it took con- 
siderable help to drive them in and yoke them. Cattle, then, 
were seldom driven into a corral, except for the purpose of 
branding and marking, and that made them more afraid 
of being corralled than they otherwise would have been. 

Int. 3. — At this time, was there any difficulty in getting 
sufficiently near them on foot, while feeding on the range, to 
shoot them ? 

Ans. — When I first came here, the cattle were as tame as 
some of Isaac Carson's cattle, now running on the prairie. 
If you were to go among them with a gun, they were fright- 
ened, and would run off a short distance from you ; they 
had evidently been shot at enough to be skittish of a gun. 
If you went among them with a handfull of salt, they would 
follow after you, and lick the salt scattered on the ground, at 
no great distance off. When Christopher Mahon and Joseph 
Larey settled on the Company's claim, about ten miles east 
of Fort Steilacoom, they built a fence around the house, 
partly to keep the Company's cattle from annoying them that 
came around the door licking the slops for salt. 

Int. 4. — You say you were attacked only once by the Com- 
pany's cattle, by a bull, between the garrison and where 
Byrd's Mill now stands. Will you please to state how many 
times after this attack of the bull you attacked other cattle 
o,f the Company, and with what results ? 



112 

Aiis. — The only one that I killed, that I was certain be- 
longed to the Company, was the one Mr. Huggins canght 
me with on the prairie, and that was killed on the order of 
Mr. Burge for Allen's road work. The other cattle that I 
killed were as wild as March hares. I can't tell how many 
I attacked ; but I hunted them daily for between two or 
three months. Sometimes for a week I killed none. One 
day, another man and myself killed nine. In the fall of 
1853 the cattle began to be killed ; that fall I came into the 
prairie where Minson, Larmain and Harrison lived, about 
four miles east of Fort Steilacoom; saw beef hanging round 
the house, and more salted in barrels. I afterwards killed a 
hundred cattle, more or less, myself. The cattle that I killed 
long after were as wild as the deer, and required an expert 
hunter to kill them. 

Int. 5. — Did not all the settlers of this vicinity, and many 
persons from adjoining counties, during and after the tall of 
1853, as long as the Company's cattle were to be found on Nis- 
qually Plains and adjacent timber lands, make a practice of 
killing them in such numbers as they could find and wanted ? 

Ans. — Yes, sir; they did, and came from other counties 
to hunt them. 

Int. 6. — Are not the timber lands surrounding and near 
Nisqually Plains useful and necessary for pasturage at most 
seasons of the jear, but especially in the droughts of sum- 
mer, during the winter season, for bands of cattle grazing 
on the Nisqually Plains ? (Counsel for the United States 
objects to all the foregoing cross-examination, except what 
relates to the subject matter of the examination-in-chief, and 
he protests that if the Company's counsel thus makes the 
witness his own, he will be cross-examined as a witness of 
the Company.) 

(Counsel for the Company insists that all the foregoing in- 
terrogatories propounded by him are within the legitimate 
range of a cross-examination, and protests against any cross- 
examination of this witness by Counsel for the United 
States.) 

Ans. — Yes. 



113 

Int. 7. — Were not many of the Company's cattle killed by 
some men wantonly, and the carcasses left where they fell ? 
Ans. — I don't know ; I never left any. 

Direct-examination resumed, and Cross-examination with reference 
to New Matter. 

Int. 1. — Give the names of all the men who came from 
other counties to kill cattle, whom you saw kill them. 

Ans. — James Riley was one ; Allen Porter was another. 

Int. 2. — How many did you see Eiley kill? 

Ans. — I saw him shoot one, and kill it. 

Int. 3. — How many did you see Porter kill ? 

Ans. — I saw Porter kill one. 

Int. 4. — How far did Riley live from the Msqually Plains 
where he killed the animal ? 

Ans. — From fifteen to twenty miles. 

Int. 5. — How far did Porter live from the Nisqually 
Plains ? 

Ans. — A mile or two nearer than Riley. 

hit. 6. — Give the names of the residents of Pierce County 
that you saw kill cattle, that you know belonged to the Com- 
pany. 

Ans. — I don't know of any one that killed cattle that I 
knew belonged to the Company ; I never saw any killed un- 
til they were perfectly wild in the woods. 

Int. 7. — In what years were these wild cattle shot of which 
you have been speaking ? 

Ans. — In part of 1853, all of 1854, and part of 1855, 

Int. 8. — What became of the principal portion of the large 
number of cattle you say you saw in 1849 and 1850 ? 

Ans. — In the spring of 1852, on the 29th day of February, 
there was a deep snow; it lay on the ground until the first 
days of April. I saw some ten or fifteen heads of, I suppose, 
Company's cattle, lying dead near the garrison of cold and 
hunger. The settlers had but very few cattle then. Judge 
Chambers occasionally 'sold a cow to the garrison. 
9 P 



114 

Int. 9. — Did not this snow extend all over the Msqually 
Plains ? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int. 10. — Would it not produce the same results elsewhere, 
as it did near the military post where you saw the cattle 
dead ? (Objected to by counsel for the Company, because 
it is leading, and because the answer must be an opinion 
simply, and not a statement of facts.) 

Ans. — I should think there would not be much difference. 

Int. 11. — Have you not seen the Company's servants shoot 
cattle running the range ? 

Ans. — I won't be certain, but I think I once saw an Indian 
named Wyamoch and a man named Legg, who belonged to 
Fort Nisqually, dressing the carcass of an ox on the prairie; 
the Company's cart was there to carry the meat away. 

Int. 12. — Was not a large portion of the killing of wild 
cattle, after 1853, done by discharged servants of the Com- 
pany ? (Objected to as leading by counsel for the Company.) 

Ans. — Yes ; I think there was a large portion killed by 
discharged servants. 

Int. 13. — Were not a great many more also killed by In- 
dians? (Objected to by counsel for the Company, for like 
reasons as the last.) 

Ans. — Yes, sir. 

Int. 14. — Was it not generally understood that the hostile 
Indians, in the war of 1855 and 1856, procured much of their 
subsistence by killing these wild cattle? (Objected to by 
counsel for the Company because leading, and the answer 
can be but mere hearsay.) 

Ans. — I don't think they killed a great many of them 
during the war. They- subsisted partly on them and partly 
on tame cattle. Their best hunters were fighting, and could 
not hunt as they had before. They could not hunt and fight 
too, particularly when the volunteers were after them. 

Int. 15. — During these years, was not the Company killing 
cattle, and having them killed, for the purpose of supplying 
beef to the garrison, to citizens, to emigrants, and for the 
supply of Victoria market ? 



115 

Ans. — I don't know of my own knowledge ; I heard they 
were. 

Cross-examination Resumed. 

Int. 1. — Were the animals killed by you, and others that 
you have stated were wild, marked and branded, or either, 
with the mark or brand, or both, of the Puget's Sound Agri- 
cultural Company ? 

Ans.— I don't know what the Company's mark was. 

Int. 2.— Had not the steers that were killed an ear mark ? 

Ans.— Some of them probably had, but I don't remember 
what it was. 

Int. 3. — Do you not know that the cattle so killed were the 
property of the Company, and were they not generally so 
considered? 

Ans. — No, sir; I did not consider that they belonged to 
the Company after they became wild. 

Int. 4. — What Indians did you ever see kill cattle ? 

Ans.— I saw an Indian named Pistichin kill three or four 
out at Mahon's ; I saw one other Indian bringing beef out 
of the woods on his horse ; but it was so common to have 
plenty of fresh beef in those days, that I thought nothing of 
it. I think I saw other Indians, but I cannot name them. 

Int. 5. — At the time Pistichin killed these cattle referred 
to by you, with whom was he living ; and state, if you know, 
for whom he killed them. 

Ans. — He was living with his wife. I am pretty confident 
that two of those carcasses went up to Mahon's; I suppose 
he took a portion of it himself. 

Int. 6. — Was this Mr. Mahon, to whose house this beef 
was taken, an American settler? 

Ans. — He was an Irishman, and a discharged soldier; I 
suppose he was naturalized ; he settled and claimed land on 
the Company's land under the United States donation law. 

Int. 7. — Did you ever know of any other settlers, either 
upon these lands of the Company, or upon the public lauds 
of the vicinity, getting Indians to kill and bring them beef? 



116 

Arts.' — Yes; I have employed Indians to kill beef for me. 

Int. 8. — Did you ever see but two cattle killed by the 
Company's servants ? 

Ans. — I think not. 

Int. 9. — How many cattle did you see killed by others, that 
you know of? 

Ans. — I remember none, except those I have already 
mentioned. 

Int. 10. — How many men that you have not named as kill- 
ing cattle have you heard from themselves or others did kill 
them ? (Objected to as incompetent.) 

Ans. — I have heard of a great many that have killed cattle 
here in the county, but can't tell the number; there were 
but two or three in the county that were not said to kill 
cattle, and they were very poor shots. 

Int. 11. — Did not nearly all the settlers on the Nisqually 
Plains, and many living in the adjoining counties of Thurs- 
ton and King, to the best of your judgment, principally 
supply themselves with meat, from the time that the cattle 
were commenced to be killed in the fall of 1853, until these 
cattle were all gone, or nearly ? (Objected to as incompetent.) 

Ans. — On Nisqually Plains, yes ; as to the other counties 
I do not know. 



James E. Williamson. 



Stbilacoom, November 22, 1866. 



Testimony of R. S. More. 

JR. S. More, being duly sworn, deposeth, in answer to inter- 
rogatories, as follows : 

Int. 1. — State your age, residence, and occupation ? 

Ans. — My age is thirty-eight; residence in Pierce County, 
Washington Territory ; I am a farmer. 

Int. 2. — How long have you resided in Pierce County ? 

Ans. — Since April, 1853. 

Int. 3. — What official positions have you held in Pierce 
County? 



117 

Ans.- — I have been county commissioner two terms ; once 
a member of the Legislature. 

Int. 4. — Were you one of the county commissioners about 
1854? 

Ans. — I think I was elected in 1854. 

Int. 5. — Did Dr. Tolmie, about that time, make an appli- 
cation to the commissioners for the reduction of the tax 
against the Puget's Sound Company assessed on cattle? 
(Objected to by counsel for the Company, because, if made, 
the same is a matter of record, and the record is the best 
evidence.) 

Ans. — He made application to have the assessment reduced. 

Int. 6. — What reasons did he urge for this reduction? 
(Objected to by counsel for the Company for like reason as 
above, also because it is incompetent, irrelevant, and imma- 
terial.) 

Ans.— He urged several reasons : 1st, he said the cattle 
were wild, and he could not get hold of them ; 2d, that he 
could not find but few of them ; 3d was, that the Company 
did not claim only either 150 or 250 head that were tame and 
running about the fort ; he catted them milch cows and work 
cattle. The Commissioners informed Mr. Tolmie that he 
must either renounce all claim to the wild cattle, or be 
assessed for them, and he renounced claim to them. 

Int. 7. — Was the tax then reduced ? 

Ans. — It was reduced on between two and three thousand 
head of cattle. 

Int. 8. — Was this application in writing ? 

Ans. — It was made orally, and then spread upon the records 
and sworn to. 

Int. 9. — Have the records of Pierce County been burned ; 
if so, when? (Objected to by counsel for the Company, be- 
cause the inquiry does not go to the record of the statement 
made by the agent of the Company, and is therefore incom- 
petent.) 

Ans. — They were burned several years after that; the 
exact date I do not remember. 



118 

Int. 10. — How many head of cattle remained assessed to 
the Company after this reduction ? 

Ans. — My impression is there were 150 or 250 head. 

Int. 11. — Are you generally acquainted with the Nisqually 
Plains claimed by the Company ? 

Ans. — Yes, sir, I believe I am ; I have been over them a 
great deal. 

Int. 12 — At how much per acre, in gold coin, would you 
value these lands, taking them as a body together, and 
averaging the whole ? 

Ans. — About Government price, or $1.25 in greenbacks. 
The value in coin would depend on the price of greenbacks. 

Cross-examination by Frank Clark, Esq., Counsel for the 

Company. 

Int. 1. — Were you ever elected county commissioner for 
Pierce county, before the annual election in 1854 ? 

Ans. — I think not. 

Int. 2. — "Was there any correction of the assessment rate 
for 1854, by the Board of County Commissioners after your 
election ? 

Ans. — No ; I think it was corrected for the year 1855. 

Int. 3. — The application for reduction of assessment then 
by Dr. Tolmie referred to in your examination-in-chief, was 
for the assessment made in the year 1855 ? 

Ans. — I think so. 

E. S. More. 

Steilacoom, W. T., November 22, 1866. 



Geo. W. Shazer, being first duly sworn, deposetb, in answer 
to interrogatories, as follows : 

Int. 1. — State your age, residence, and occupation. 

Ans. — I am forty-eight years of age ; I reside in Thurston 
county ; I am a farmer by occupation. 

Int. 2. — Did you ever reside in Pierce County? If so, 
when? 



119 

Ans. — I resided in Pierce County the latter part of 1855, 
and the first part of 1856, for nine months. 

Int. 3.— rHow far is your residence from the Nisqually 
Plains ? 

Ans. — -About one mile, just across the river. 

Int. 4. — Did you ever have any arrangement with Dr. Tol- 
mie, agent of the Company, about killing cattle ? If so, 
state when, and what it was, 

Ans. — Yes; I had in 1851. There was a beef in Thurs- 
ton County with my cattle, belonging to the Company. I 
notified Dr. Tolmie that I did not want it with my cattle. 
He told me if it was a big one, I could have it for $10, and 
kill it myself. In 1852 I got five more, two cows, two calves, 
and one yearling, running in the same place, at $5 per head. 
In 1855 I had another arrangement to kill cattle for the Com- 
pany. The first contract was at five cents per pound for 
killing and delivery to Fort Nisqually. This lasted but a 
short time, and we afterwards had four cents per pound. 

Int. 5. — How did you kill these cattle ? 

Ans. — I shot them out on the plains, and in the range, 
wherever I could find them. 

Int. 6. — Did the Company pay you anything for delivering 
the hides ? If so, how much ? 

Ans. — Thirty-seven and a-half cents each. 

Cross-examination by Frank Clark, Esq., Counsel for the 

Company. 

Int. 1. — While killing cattle under the last arrangement 
with the Company, did you kill any cattle by mistake not 
belonging to the Company ? If so, state their size and de- 
scription, who they belonged to, and what you had to pay 
the owner for the same. 

Ans. — I killed two ; the beef weighed about fifteen hun- 
dred pounds; the beef was good; I delivered it to the Com- 
pany. One belonged to Charles Wren, and the other to 



120 

Sandy Smith. We had to pay them $100 a piece for them. 
The Company allowed me eight cents a pound for this beef 

his 

George W. Shazer. M 

v mark. 

Steilacoom, November 23, 1866. 

Attest to signature : 

George W. Sloan. 



Testimony of E. A. Light. 

E. A. Light being duly sworn, deposeth, in answer to inter- 
rogatories, as follows : 

Int. 1. — State your age, residence, and occupation. 

Ans. — I am forty-four years old ; I reside in Steilacoom , 
Pierce County, Washington Territory ; I am a merchant. 

Int. 2. — How long have you resided in Pierce County ? 

Ans. — Since the fall of 1853 ; I came in with the emigra- 
tion of that year, by Nachess Pass. 

Int. 3. — Bid Dr. Tolmie ever make you the offer of the 
privilege of killing cattle belonging to the Puget's Sound 
Company ? If so, state when it was, and the terms of the 
offer. 

Ans. — He did in the fall of 1853. He told me I could 
have them for five dollars a head, small ones for my own use. 

Int. 4. — Have you ever farmed any on the Nisqually Plains 
or near to the same ? 

Ans. — I have on the Nisqually's river bottom. 

Int. 5. — Are you acquainted with the Nisqually Plains, 
claimed by the Puget's Sound Company ? 

Ans. — Yes, sir. 

Int. 6. — At how much per acre, in gold coin, would you 
fix their value, averaging the whole tract claimed by the 
Company together ? 

Ans, — Fifty cents per acre ; it is a matter I have thought 



121 

a good deal about, and talked about considerably, and that 
is rny opinion. 

Gross-examination by Frank \_Clarh,~\ Counsel for the Company. 

Int. 1.— Is the town of Steilacoom, where you reside, 
within the limits of the Company's claim in this county ? 

Ans. — It is. 

Int. 2. — What is the size of the town-lots, where you re- 
side ? 

Ans. — Sixty feet, by one hundred and twenty feet. 

Int. 3. — Did you not purchase an unimproved lot, some 
distance back from the shore of the Sound, within the last 
two or three years, and pay therefor in coin, or its equiva- 
lent, the sum of $100? 

Ans. — I did purchase such a lot, and gave $100 for it; it 
was unfenced, stumps remaining, and timber taken away. 

Direct Examination Resumed. 

Int. 1. — Has property in the town of Steilacoom increased, 
or decreased in value since you purchased that lot ? 

Ans. — I think it has decreased. 

lit. 2. — Was there anything specially desirable about the 
particular lot in question which caused you to pay so large a 
price? If so, state what it was. (Objected to by Counsel 
for the Company, because it assumes what is not stated in 
testimony, that a large price was paid for the lot.) 

Ans. — It was a corner lot, and the last one of four com- 
prising a half block, of which I owned the other three; I 
supposed at the time my barn was partly on this lot. 

Cross- Examination Resumed. 

Int. 1. — What improvements have you made upon that 
lot since you purchased it ? 

Ans. — I have taken the roots and stumps out, enclosed it 
with a picket fence, and set it out with fruit trees. 



122 

Int. 2. — What was the cost of the improvements you have 
placed upon it ? 

Arts. — About $50, I think. 

Int. 3. — What will you take for that lot and improvements 
to-day ? 

Ans. — I would not sell it, under the circumstances as it is 
situated, for less than $400 ; I don't want to sell it all. 

Erastus A. Light. 

Steilacoom, November 23, 1866. 



Testimony of J. L. McDonald. 

J. L. McDonald being duly sworn, deposeth, in answer to 
interrogatories, as follows: 

Int. 1. — State your age, residence, and occupation. 

Ans. — I am forty-six years old; I reside in Steilacoom, 
Washington Territory, for the last two years ; I have been a 
sea-faring man since 1835, with slight variations on shore ; I 
have no particular occupation at present. 

Int. 2. — Have you ever been a ship master ? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int. 3. — Have you, at any time in this Territory, engaged 
in ship building ? 

Ans. — Not much ; I have built a sloop here, or had her 
built here; I worked on her myself too, under the super- 
vision of the builder. 

Int. 4. — Have you, at any time, examined the oak timber 
on the Nisqually Plains, with reference to its adaptation to 
the purposes of ship-building ? If so, state when it was, the 
circumstances, and what is your opinion of the timber. 

Ans. — I have examined it on three different occasions, in 
three different years, on three different routes. I will first 
state what it is not adapted to, and then state what it is 
adapted to. It is not adapted to the building of A 1 ship, 
for the reason that the trunks of the trees are too short for 
the keel, the kelsons, the bends, the lower-deck beams, the 



123 

floor timbers, the futtock timbers, hood planks, and railing. 
The trunks averaging not over twelve feet in length. With- 
out those elements of oak timber in a ship, she is not A 1 
ship. It would be difficult to find stem, stern, or rudder 
posts of twenty feet length in those trunks. The trunks are 
adapted to the purposes of hatch combing, stanchions, wind- 
lass bodies, pall bits, timber heads, cleats, jaws for gaffs and 
booms, belaying pins, tree nails, and the smaller work in 
the finish in the upper part of a ship. The branches of the 
trees are susceptible of being used in the floor timbers of 
small vessels, scows, or boats of fifty tons or under. They 
are also susceptible of being used as cat-heads, stern davits, 
and knees of six inches clear or under. As to the knees 
under those trees, I am not a judge of them, having never 
seen any such on the Sound. I may mention that those 
oaks partake of the nature of New England pasture oak. 

Int. 5. — What is the nature of this oak timber as to tough- 
ness or brittleness ? 

Ans. — I don't know. 

Int. 6. — To what extent is the fir timber of this country 
adapted to the purposes you ha^e said the oak is fit for ? 

Ans. — I would prefer the oak for the purposes for which I 
have stated it is adapted all the time ? 

Int. 7. — Knowing what you do of this oak timber, and of 
the other timbers of this country, what importance do you 
attach to the oak of the Nisqually Plains for ship-building 
purposes ? 

Ans. — I attach little or no importance to them in the con- 
struction of large sailing ships or steamships; but in the 
construction of a fishing fleet of superior vessels, those oaks 
will furnish important materials in the construction and 
finish of fishing vessels of one hundred tons or under. 

Cross-examination by Frank Clark, Counsel for the Company. 

Int. 1. — You state in your examination-in-chief that you 
made in three different years, each one trip, by different 
routes, please to describe the part of Nisqually Plains at 
these times, or any other you have examined the oak trees 



124 

upon, with a view to convince yourself as to their value for 
ship-building purposes. 

Ans. — I traveled out here in 1863, with Mr. Lane and 
lady in his wagon, by Byrd's mill to Dr. Spurning's farm, 
from thence we crossed over to the Tallantyre farm, and joined 
the military road at Montgomery's. In 1864, 1 took a Sabbath 
journey with the late George Gallagher in a wagon out to 
Mr. Cawley's farm, six miles east of Steilacoom. The last 
three miles of which was in a more southerly [course] than the 
former trip. I performed a circuit there, or a radius of three 
miles beyond Mr. Cawley's farm, and examined all the timber 
growing within the purview of my observation; returned same 
evening by same route. Third and last trip, I left the hospi- 
table roof of Edward Huggins, Esq., and performed a circuit 
by the way of Captain Berry's house, with whom I tarried 
for twenty-four hours, when I journeyed along east of the 
Legelechechew [ ? Segualichew] and American Lakes, and 
pursued my way then to Isaac Carson's, with whom I tarried 
some twenty hours ; from whence I came into town, jour- 
neying slowly on the way, the distance being about seven 
miles from Carson's to town. 

Int. 2. — Have you visited the following named plains, 
many of them containing from 3,000 to 6,000 acres and 
upwards each, and all of which contain large groves of good 
oak trees, namely : Spanoway, Elk, North High Muck, Low 
Muck, South Muck, French Prairie, Dominick Prairie, 
Lastin Plain, Indian Reservation Prairie, Squally Plain, Red 
Pine Plain, Sandhill Prairie, Back Squally Plain, Red House 
Plain, Judson's and Boatman's Prairies? 

Ans. — I cannot answer those questions, without those 
prairies and plains are depicted to me on the map. 

Int. 3. — If the trunks of oak trees could be found on the 
ISTisqually Plains of sufficient length to answer the purposes, 
those you say you have seen not adapted for, would not this 
section of country afford facilities for obtaining ship-building 
material not presented by any other portion of this coast ? 

Ans. — To a certain extent, it would. 

Int. 4. — Is not the prairie country nearly all under fence 



125 

on the different routes you traveled ; and how often, in your 
examination, did you cross fences into enclosures to examine 
groves of oak, or to look for the tall scattered oaks growing 
in the skirts of the pine timber ? 

Ans. — No; not one-quarter is fenced; I crossed hut one 
fence in my travels from Captain Berry's to Mr. Carson's gate. 
The oaks are not generally in the enclosures, but principally 
on the margin of the lakes. 

Int. 5. — How many lakes, in your travels through Ms- 
qually Plains, have you ever seen, and what are their names? 
Ans. — If I remember right, I saw four; I do not know 
their names. 

Int. 6. — How far distant from the shores of Puget's Sound 
in a straight line to the nearest point, in your judgment, are 
either of the lakes seen by you? 

Ans. — I have taken no means to ascertain. 
Int. 7. — Are either one of them five miles from the shore 
of the Sound ? 

Ans. — I could not say. 

Int. 8. — Were not all the lakes seen by you between Mr. 
Huggins's house and the present site of Byrd's mill? 

Ans. — I cannot say, sir; I have been in the habit of deal- 
ing with fine instruments, and not jumping at conclusions. 
Int. 9. — In your different trips hereinbefore described, did 
you not see the stumps and remains of large quantities of 
oak trees ? 

Ans. — Yes ; within a radius of two miles of the garrison. 
Int. 10.— -Did you ever cut down, dig up, or use a single 
oak tree grown upon the Nisqually Plains for ship-building 
purposes ? 

Ans. — I did not. 

Int. 11. — Are not all the varieties of timber growing be- 
tween the Nisqually and Puyallup rivers in Pierce county, 
that are required in the construction of a first-class ship ? 

Ans. — I have not seen it. Nothing but oak and teak, that 
I have any knowledge of, will make a first-class ship. 

Int. 12. — Is there any place known to you on this coast 
furnishing like quantities of the different varieties of timber 
required in the construction of a first-class ship, that is to be 



126 

found growing on the claim of the Puget's Sound Company 
in Pierce county ? 

Arts. — There is not; I have already stated that a first-class 
ship is not built out of such timber at all. 

Int. 13. — Did you ever work at ship-building at all, except 
the labor performed by you in the construction of the sloop 
referred to in your examination-in-chief? 

Ans. — I did; I assisted in planking the "Massachusetts"' 
in 1845, in East Boston, Massachusetts. I immediately had 
a new schooner built in Truro, Massachusetts, named " Alle- 
ghany ; " I worked onJier. All that I have got to say about 
that is, that there has not been a year since, excepting such 
years as I have been to sea, but what I have either been 
building up or tearing down vessels. 

Int. 14. — How many years have you been at sea since 1845 ? 

Ans. — I have been on the deep sea twelve years, and three 
years on Puget's Sound. 

Int. 15. — Did you ever take charge of the building of a 
first-class ship ? 

Ans. — I did not. 

Int. 16. — Do you consider yourself a master-shipwright ? 

Ans. — I do not. 

Int. 17. — What was the tonnage and denomination of the 
vessel built for you on Puget's Sound, and mentioned in 
your examination-in-chief? 

Ans. — Seven tons, and sloop rigged. 

Int. 18. — Is this the vessel you went to sea in during your 
three years you w r ent to sea on Puget's Sound ? 

Ans. — She was. 

Int. 19. — What number of seamen was needed and did 
you carry to sail her ? 

Ans. — I carried no seamen ; I carried all dead heads ; I 
could sail her myself; she was a trading sloop. 

Direct Examination Resumed. 

Int. 1. — Where did you build your sloop ? 
Ans. — At Seattle. 

J. L. McDonald. 
Steilacoom, November 23, 1866. 



127 



Testimony of Thomas M. Chambers. 

Thomas M. Chambers, being first duly sworn, deposeth, to 
interrogatories, as follows : 

Int. 1. — State your age, residence, and occupation. 

Ans. — I am seventy-one years old ; I reside in Pierce 
county, Washington Territory ; rny present occupation is a 
miller ; formerly I was a farmer. 

Int. 2. — How long have you lived in what is now Wash- 
ington Territory ? * 

Ans. — Since 1847. 

Int. 3. — How long have you resided at your present loca- 
tion near Steilacoom? 

Ans. — I commenced improvements in 1849, but moved 
my family on, I think, in 1851. 

Int. 4. — At what place did you reside in Washington 
Territory before moving to Steilacoom Bay? 

Ans. — In Chamber's Prairie, in Thurston county, about 
seven or eight miles south of Msqually river. 

Int. 5. — From your earliest knowledge of the Company's 
cattle on the Xisqually Plains, were the cattle killed or 
tame? 

Ans. — There was some part of the cattle that Dr. Tolmie 
used for milch cows and for oxen that might be called tame 
cattle; the balance that was not accustomed to that, I would 
rather call them wild. 

Int. 6. — Are you well acquainted with the Company's 
claim, known as the Xisqually Plains generally ? 

Ans. — Yes, sir; I have been all over it a great many 
times. 

Int. 7. — What, in your judgment, is the value per acre of 
this land for agricultural and grazing purposes, taking it as 
a body together, without regard to improvements ? 

A^is. — I would not put it at more than fifty cents an acre, 
in gold. 

Int. 8. — Describe the soil of these plains generally. 

Ans. — Some portions are sandy ; the greater body grav- 



128 

elly ; there is good soil in the swamps, hut it costs a good 
deal of money to drain them to get the soil. 

Int. 9. — What official positions have you held in Pierce 
county ? 

Arts. — I have been county commissioner several times. 

Int. 10. — Did Br. Tolmie, agent of the Puget's Sound 
Company, ever object to paying taxes on the Company's 
claim ? If so, state the reasons he gave to the county com- 
missioners. (Objected to by counsel for the Company as 
leading, and because the answer, if responsive to the ques- 
tion, must be incompetent and immaterial.) 

Ans. — I don't recollect the reasons he gave at the time, or 
whether he gave any reasons at all or not; he did object. 

Int. 11. — State the circumstances as near as you can re- 
member. (Objected to by counsel for the Company, because 
the only competent evidence of the subject-matter referred 
to is the record of the transaction, which the witness states 
is now to be found on file in the office of the auditor of 
of Pierce county.) 

Ans. — The reason why we knew it was there, was because 
he^paid it under protest. 

Int. 12. — In what year was this ? 

Ans. — I do not recollect, for I have not been a commis- 
sioner for six years or more. 

Int. 13. — Have the records of Pierce county, including 
those of the commissioner's court, been burned since that 
date? 

Ans. — No ; it was previous to that ; I think in 1859. 

Cross-examination by Frank Clark, Esq., for the Company. 

Int. 1. — Where had you resided for the two years pre- 
vious to coming to what is now Washington Territory? 

Ans. — Near Oregon City, Oregon. 

Int. 2. — Were you well acquainted with the lands of the 
Willamette Valley before coming here ? 

Ans. — I was acquainted with a portion of it ; I traveled 
up as far as the Santiam and over the Tualatin Plains. 



129 

Int. 3. — When you came over here from Oregon, were 
there not in the Willamette Valley and its vicinity, with 
which you were acquainted, large quantities of unoccupied 
lands valuable for purposes of general agriculture and stock- 
raising ? 

Arts. — Yes. 

Int. 4. — -Commencing with the point of the northern 
boundary of your donation claim in Pierce County, and 
taking one mile and a half in width of the frontage of the 
lands lying on Puget's Sound to Segualichew Creek, at what 
price per acre would you place their value for milling, town- 
site, timber, and other purposes ? 

Ans.— Take the improvements off, and I would not value 
it at scarcely anything at all. 

Int. 5. — What value would you place on the balance of 
the frontage lands, say a mile and a half in width, between 
the mouth of the Puyallup and Nisqually rivers ? 

Ans. — It is not very valuable, so far as I know. 

Int. 6. — From a point on Puget's Sound, running due 
South, so as to include your claim, and making a frontage 
one mile and a half in depth, to Segualichew Creek, is the 
land referred to in the last interrogatory for any purpose of 
greater or less value, in your opinion, than this tract would 
be? 

Ans. — The land between the northern boundary of my 
claim and Segualichew Creek is the most valuable. 

Int. 7. — How much prairie land would a line drawn from 
near the mouth of the Puyallup to a point near the mouth of 
the Nisqually, so as to embrace a frontage of one mile and 
a half in width from the shores of the Sound, include? 

Ans. — I think over half prairie land. 

Int. 8. — Have you recently sold the poorer half of your 
claim, consisting of 320 acres ? 

Ans. — I have been compelled to sell, half of my claim, con- 
sisting of 320 acres ? 

Int. 9. — Did you esteem that of equal value, if unim- 
proved, to the half of the claim still retained by you, if un- 
improved also ? 
10 



130 

Ans. — I do ; there is the best water-privilege on it. 

Int. 10. — What did you sell that half of your claim for ? 

Ans. — It was all a forced arrangement; it was for a debt 
of between three and four thousand dollars. 

Int. 11. — What do you consider the value of the water- 
power on the half of the claim you still retain ? 

Ans. — I can't fix sl value. 

Int. 12. — Have you ever owned any lots in the present 
town-site of Steilacoom ? 

Ans. — Yes, sir ; I have. They were donated to me by the 
proprietor to get me to take an interest in the place. At 
that time the town-site was not considered a part of the 
Company's claim. 

Int. 13. — From the time you first came to the county, have 
you ever thought the Company had any claim here, or else- 
where in this Territory ? If so, describe the amount that you 
thought belonged to them ? 

Ans. — I don't know the number of acres they had enclosed 
at that time; but it was not a large amount, not to exceed 
two hundred acres. I considered they had no rights out- 
side of their enclosures. 

Int. 14. — What proportion of the half of your claim, still 
retained and occupied by you, is prairie land, and what 
number of acres upon it have you improved at present? 

Ans. — There is about iive acres of prairie on it ; I have 
about four acres of this half of the claim improved. 

Int. 15. — Excluding the four acres you have improved 
from this half of the claim, and reserving the use of the 
water-power, what will you take per acre in cash for the 
remaining part of the claim? 

Ans. — I does not belong to me ; I cannot sell it. 

Int. 16. — If it did, and you had a clear title to the same 
and wished to dispose of it, what value in money would you 
place upon it per acre? 

Ans. — If I had a title, and there was a buyer, I would 
think about [it;] I would not sell it on credit. 

Int. 17 — Do you consider tbe frontage of a mile and a half 
in width on the Puget's Sound, between the mouths of the 



131 

Nisqually and Puyallup rivers, with its water-powers, its ad- 
vantages as affording points of shipment, its value for town- 
site purposes, dry-docks, and timber, of greater value than 
any tract of like extent lying between it and the eastern or 
southern boundaries of the Company's claim in Pierce 
County ? 

Ans. — It is of more value. 

Int. 18. — Do you know of any frontage on Puget's Sound, 
of like extent, that you consider of greater value than the 
one last referred to ? 
Ans. — I do not. 

Int. 19. — Did you ever sell any of the lots given to you 
by the town-proprietor of the town of Steilacoom to Philip 
Keach ? 

Ans. — I did. The house that I built on it cost me about as 
much as I got for it. 

Int. 20. — Did you not sell unimproved town-lots to Philip 
Keach ? 

Ans. — I did not. 

Int. 21. — Did you not sell unimproved lots in the town of 
Steilacoom to men by the name of Maher ? 
Ans. — Yes ; four ; a number. 

Int. 22. — What price did you sell them for per lot ? 
Ans. — I sold the four lots for $500. 

Int. 23. — From the time you first settled on the place 
where you at present reside, have you not frequently been 
consulted by persons desirous of settling on Nisqually Plains 
as to their right to do so, notwithstanding the claims of the 
Puget's Sound Agricultural Company to the same, and have 
you not invariably advised them to settle and pay no atten- 
tion to the claims of the Company ? 

Ans. — I have, excepting the lands they occupied ; I would 
do it over again; I did not consider they had any rights. 

Int. 24. — Is the exception referred to in your last answer 
confined to the 200 acres that you have hereinbefore stated 
you believed comprised the whole amount of land to which 
the Company had any right ? 
Ans. — Yes. 



132 

Int. 25. — Did you not, without permission, in 1849, 1850, 
1851, or later, remove to your own claim some thousands of 
rails from the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company's enclo- 
sure, at and around the present site of Fort Steilacoom 

Ans. — I did not ; the soldiers moved them. 

Int. 26. — Did you use any rails in making any enclosures 
upon your donation claim, at, or subsequent to the time of 
its location, that you found thereupon or in its vicinity ? 

Ans. — There were no rails there, except what was on Mr. 
Heath's claim, which I occupied after he died. These I took 
and used. 

Int. 27. — Did you, before taking and using them, first 
have the permission of Mr. Heath, his heirs, or legal repre- 
sentatives, and- were they accounted for to the person or es- 
tate to whom they belonged ? 

Ans. — They were on my claim. He was dead. I had as 
good a right to them as any one. I was his legal represent- 
ative in his will. 

Direct Examination Resumed. 

Int. 1. — What amount of money had you expended in im- 
proving the half of your claim, which you sold to pay your 
debt of less than $4,000 in greenbacks ? 

Ans. — It cost me upwards of $15,000 ; I paid $5 a day for 
common labor a part of the time. 

Cross-examination Resumed. 

Int. I. — What would be the coin value of all the improve- 
ments on the half of the claim you sold that you stated in 
your last answer cost you $15,000 ; I mean the value at the 
time you sold it last summer ? 

Ans. — I could not say what it is worth ; they are old and 
dilapidated now. 

Int. 2. — Were all the improvements on the place, at the 
time you sold them, of the coin value of $250 ? 



133 

Am. — I don't know their value ; I won't say a word about 
it. 

Int. 3. — Will you swear that the improvements on the 
claim at the time you sold them were of the coin value of 
$250? 

Ans. — -I do not know whether they were or not. 

Int. 4. — Has there not been a large amount of valuable 
oak timber, also saw logs, removed from this part of the 
claim, between the time that you settled upon it and the 
time you sold it in summer 1866 ? 

Ans. — Dr. Tolmie rented a part of my claim to the sol- 
diers, and I want him to pay me for it now. Dr. Tolmie has 
been receiving rent from the Government yearly. The most 
of the oak timber on that part has been cut off by soldiers 
and others. 

Int. 5. — Is not that part of the claim, stated by you as 
rented to the soldiers by Dr. Tolmie, and upon which he has 
yearly received rent, included within the limits of the Mili- 
tary reservation commonly known as Fort Steilacoom ? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int. 6. — Does not the Military reservation at Fort Steila- 
coom include the site of the buildings and most part of the 
farm formerly occupied by J. T. Heath ? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int. 7. — Was not Dr. Tolmie appointed with yourself, by 
the will of J. T. Heath, executors of his estate? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Thos. M. Chambers. 

Steilacoom, November 23, 1866. 



Testimony oe Daniel E. Lane. 

Daniel E. Lane being first duly sworn, deposeth, in answer 
to interrogatories, as follows : 

Int. 1. — State your age, residence, and occupation. 

Ans. — I am fifty-five years of age; I reside in Pierce 
County ; I am a farmer by occupation. 



134 

Int. 2. — How far from Steilacoom is your present resi- 
dence ? 

Ans. — Twenty-five miles. 

Int. 3. — Did you ever reside on any part of the Msqually 
Plains? If so, state when it was that you settled there. 

Ans. — I did; I settled there in the fall of 1853. 

Int. 4. — Was any notice served on you by the agents of 
the Puget's Sound Company to leave this place ? 

Ans. — There was a notice in this way, that I was trespass- 
ing on the Puget's Sound Company's land ; it was to show 
me that I had no lawful right; that I was trespassing on 
their land. 

Int. 5. — Did you afterwards have any conversation with 
Dr. Tolmie about the intention of this notice ? If so, state 
the substance of what he said. 

Ans. — Dr. Tolmie told me, if I recollect right, and I think 
I do, that he did not care particularly about my settling on 
the land ; was willing I should settle there. This notice was 
merely to show that they maintain their claim to the land. 
This conversation took place in Dr. Tolmie's house ; my son 
William was with me at the time. 

Int. 6. — Are you well acquainted with the claim of the 
Puget's Sound Company, known as the E"isqually Plains ? 

Ans. — Yes ; with the greater portion of it. 

Int. 7. — At what price per acre would you fix the value of 
these lands, averaging them together? 

Ans. — It is a pretty hard question for me to answer. A small 
proportion of it is good land ; but the remainder is almost 
worthless. To estimate the value of the whole, I would not 
put it above Government price ; I would not be bound to 
pay that much for it myself ; I consider it poor farming land ; 
I consider it just as Dr. Tolmie told me he considered it. 

Int. 8. — What do you refer to when you say Dr. Tolmie 
considered this land ? State the substance of any conversa- 
tion you had with him about its value. 

Ans. — At the time that Mr. Dean had a trial with Mr.Hug- 
gins and Mr. Greig for trespass, I was then living on George 
Gibbs' farm. Dr. Tolmie asked me if I still held my claim 



135 

at the Puyallup. I told him I did. He told me I was wise, 
and stated that Mr. Dean was very foolish for contending for 
that place, out on the gravelly plains, for it was worth but 
a trifle for farming purposes. All the land was of value was 
for grazing, and their stock had eat it so out that it was not 
worth muchibr that. That is about all that I recollect. 

Int. 9. — Was your claim on the Puyallup within the Com- 
pany's claim ? 

Ans. — Dr. Tolmie told me it was not ; that they did not 
claim that land down there. 

Int. 10. — On what part of the IsTisqually Plains did you 
settle in 1853 ? 

Ans. — About two miles from Mr. Dean's place. 

Int. 11. — When did you leave there to go over to the Puy- 
allup ? 

Ans.— -In the fall of 1854. 

Int. 12. — Did you then take the claim on which you now 
reside'/ 

Ans. — Yes, sir. 

Int. 13. — How did you come to be living on the Gibbs 
place, which is on the Company's claim, at the time of the 
Dean suit? 

Ans. — In the fall of 1855, I came out on the account of 
Indian difficulties ; lived out on the plains until 1859, 1 think. 

Int. 14. — Did you then move back to your present place, 
on the Puyallup bottom ? 

Ans. — Yes, sir. 

Cross-examination by Frank Clark, Esq., Counsel for the 

Company. 

Int. 1. — Previous to emigrating to this Territory, where 
had you resided ? 

Ans. — In Laporte County, Indiana. 

Int. 2. — How long had you resided there ? 

Ans. — Mne years. 

Int. 3. — Where had you resided previous to that ? 

Ans. — In Elkhart County, Indiana; Noble County, Indi- 
ana ; Paulding County, Ohio, and in New York city before 
^hat, and on Long Island, where I commenced life. 



136 

Int. 4. — What was your age when you went to New York 
city? 

Ans. — Nineteen years. 

Int. 5. — How long did you reside there. 

Ans. — Seven years. 

Int. 6. — "What was your business while there ? 

Ans. — Cartman. 

Int. 7. — How long did you reside in Paulding County, 
Ohio? 

Ans. — About two years. 

Int. 8. — What was your business there? 

Ans. — Principal business, fever and ague and farming. 

Int. 9. — Which was the principal branch of your business 
there ? 

Ans. — I was not able to work at farming but a small pro- 
portion of the time; almost everybody was sick on the 
Maumee river. 

Int. 10. — Where did you move from this place to ? 

Ans. — Noble County, Indiana. 

Int. 11. — How long did you remain there ? 

Ans. — I do not exactly recollect ; I think it was six years. 

Int. 12. — What was your business while there ? 

Ans. — Farming. 

Int. 13. — Where did you go to next? 

Ans. — Elkhart County, Indiana. 

Int. 14. — How long did you remain there? 

Ans. — I can't recollect; I think it was somewhere about 
live or six years. 

Int. 15. — What was your business while there ? 

Ans. — Farming. 

Int. 16. — Where did you go next ? 

Ans. — Laporte County, Indiana. 

Int. 17. — How long did you reside there ? 

Ans. — Nine years. 

Int. 18. — What was your business while there? 

Ans. — Farming. 

Int. 19 — .Where did you move to from there ? 

Ans. — To Washington Territory, Pierce County. 



137 

Int. 20. — At what time, in what year did you leave Laporte 
County, Indiana, for Washington Territory ? 

Ans.— About the 1st of March, 1853. 

Int. 21. — When did you arrive in Pierce County, Wash- 
ington Territory ? 

Ans. — About the middle of October, 1853. 

Int. 22. — What is your age ? 

Ans. — Fifty-five last month, October. 

Int. 23. — Are you as certain that you were nineteen years 
of age when you went to New York and of all the facts de- 
tailed subsequent to the statement of that fact in your cross- 
examination, as you are of any statement that you have made 
upon your examination-in-chief? 

Ans. — I might be mistaken in the time ; I have kept no 
exact record of the time. 

Int. 24. — Could you be mistaken in the time to the extent 
of six or seven years ? 

Ans. — It is possible I might be ; it is something that I 
have not thought of; a great part of it is mere guess work 
in regard to the time. 

Int. 25. — Is it not possible that you might have made a 
like mistake in the statement you made in your examination- 
in-chief? 

Ans.— I have made no mistake, unless it be in regard to 
the price of land; that is my opinion; people differ in 
opinion. 

Int. 26. — Designate that part of your testimony, in an- 
swer to cross-interrogatories, in which it is possible for you 
to have made a mistake of either six or seven years. 

Ans.— I am not positive of my exact age when I went to 
New York city ; I am not positive of the exact time that I 
lived in Paulding County, Ohio; Noble County, Indiana; 
Elkhart County, Indiana; it was mere guess work. 

Int. 27. — Is the part of your testimony, referred to in your 
last answer, all that you are" now willing to swear was mere 
guess work when given ? 

Ans. — What I stated for facts, are facts. 

Int. 28. — Did you not, in your first answer, state as a fact 



138 

that you were nineteen years of age when you went to New 
York city ? 

Ans. — I made the statement. When I came to think fur- 
ther, I had lived in New York some time before I was nine- 
teen, on the account of some business that was transacted 
when I was nineteen, that I did not think of when the ques- 
tion was first asked me; and that is the reason why I was 
mistaken. 

Int. 29. — How long had you resided in New York when 
you were nineteen years old ? 

Ans. — I don't recollect exactly. 

Int. 30. — Had you lived there a year ? 

Ans. — Very likely I had, and perhaps more. That is just 
as near as I can come at it. 

Int. 31. — Had you lived there two years? 

Ans. — I don't know whether I lived there two 3'ears, or 
more, or less; don't know, can't tell, don't remember. 

Int. 32. — Had you lived there three years? 

Ans. — Well, I do not think I had, but still I am not positive. 

Int. 33. — Had you lived there four years ? 

Ans. — No, sir. 

Int. 34. — Is the George Gibbs referred to in your examina- 
tion in chief, the same George Gibbs that is now acting as 
one of the secretaries, on the part of the United States, to 
the British and American Joint Commission appointed to 
adjust and determine the H. B. and P. S. A. Companies 
claims against the United States'? 

Ans. — It is the same George Gibbs that has been in that 
Commission, but whether he is in it now I do not know. 

Int. 35. — Did you state as a fact, in your cross-examina- 
tion, that you resided two years in Paulding county, Ohio, 
and was principally engaged with fever and ague and 
farming? 

Ans. — My business was farming when I was able to work; 
the exact time I have stated before I could not tell. 

Int. 36. — Did George Gibbs squat upon, and to some 
extent improve, a piece of land upon the Company's claim 
in this county ? 



139 

Arts. — George Gibbs took under the donation act, as I 
understood it, on land the Company claimed, and he im- 
proved a part of it himself. 

Int. 37. — How long did Gibbs reside upon this claim? 

Ans. — He lived there, personally, over a year ; and I think 
two years, if I am not mistaken. 

Int. 38. — Have not you lived on his place, more or less, 
with his assent, or at his request, since he left it ? 

Ans. — I have lived on it by agreement between him and 
me. He never left the place, that is to forsake it, and al- 
ways had some property there, and made it his home until 
he went away on the boundary line business. 

Int. 39. — Does he still claim it under the donation law ? 

Ans. — He has sold it to John Flett. 

Int. 40. — How recently was that sale made ? 

Ans. — Some time last winter. 

Int. 41. — Have you had any communications by letter, 
message, or otherwise, from this Mr. George Gibbs, regard- 
ing your giving evidence in this matter ? 

Ans. — No, sir. 

Int. 42. — Can you pretend to swear particularly as to con- 
versations you took part in twelve or thirteen years ago ? 

Ans. — Some conversations I had, I can ; and some conver- 
sations I have had with different individuals, I cannot. 

Int. 43. — What year were you born in ? 

Ans.— In 1811, October 24. 

Int. 4:4:. — In what year was this conversation between Dr. 
Tolmie and yourself had about your Puyallup claim, and 
the propriety of Mr. Dean's leaving that of the Company and 
taking one along side of you ? 

Ans. — In regard to the time of the conversation you allude 
to, was the time that Mr. Dean had the trial with Huggins 
and Mr. Craig ; I don't recollect the year, but the time can 
be ascertained by going to the probate records; I was on the 
jury. 

Int. 45. — When Dr. Tolmie was talking to you, do you 
not think he was very much pleased with your leaving the 
Company's claim, and very anxious that the balance of the 



140 

squatters thereupon should follow your example, but more 
especially Mr. Dean, who was then prosecuting frivolous 
complaints against the employes of the Company? 

Arts. — Well, every person has their thoughts, and can't 
help their thoughts, and I thought of course Dr. Tolmie 
thought the gravelly plains were frivolous, and the land in 
the Puyallup bottom was valuable, and by talking so to me 
would please me, and he would get a sort of an understand- 
ing how the case was going. 

Int. 46. — Is this last answer of yours stated as a fact, or do 
you wish to modify it, and have it considered like the 
answer as to your age, when you went to New York city, 
mere guess work ? 

Ans. — I answered it exactly agreeably to my thoughts. 

Int. 47.— Was this Mr. Dean referred to a squatter upon 
the Company's claim? 

Ans. — He was an employe of the Puget's Sound Company, 
under Dr. Tolmie. 

Int. 48. — Was this Mr. Dean referred to a squatter upon 
the Company's claim ? 

Ans. — He was an employe' of the Company, and when his 
time was out, he jumped the place he occupied. 

Int. 49. — At the time this suit of which you speak was 
pending, had he not left the service of the Company, and 
jumped this claim? 

Ans. — I understood that his time was out, and he did not 
choose to remain longer in the Company, and quit and 
jumped the claim. 

Daniel E. Lane. 

Steilacoom, November 23, 1866. 



Testimony op John Bradley. 

John Bradley, being first duly sworn, deposeth, in answer to 
interrogatories, as follows : 
Int. 1. — State your age, residence, and occupation. 
Ans. — I have to give my age as my mother gave it to me. 



141 

I was born 11th of March, 1819 ; I reside on the Elk Plain, 
Pierce county ; I am a farmer. 

Int. 4. — When did you first come to Pierce county ? 

Ans. — In the spring of 1847. 

Int. 3. — Have you resided here ever since ? 

Ans. — I have resided here all the time, till the 19th day of 
November, 1849, I left for California mines ; I returned the 
following June. 

Int. 4. — Did you ever have any conversation with Dr. 
Tolmie, the agent of the Company, about a notice served on 
Sidney Smith ? If so, state when it was, and the substance 
of the conversation. 

Ans. — In 1847, I came over here with L. E. Smith; I 
went up to Muck with him ; he went to Mr. Heath and got 
the lent of a plough. At the time that he and I was plough- 
ing, to put in a spring crop, Dr. Tolmie and several of his 
servants came along and warned him off the place. I asked 
Dr. Tolmie what was the reason that he warned him off? 
Says I, did you not bring him here from the Willamette 
and show him this claim, and now you are warning him off. 
He told me, no; that he did not show him that claim, but 
that he sent some of his men to show him. I asked him 
what was the reason that he warned him off; he said there 
was a treaty made, and that the Government was so good as 
to reserve some for them, for they did not claim any before. 
I told him then, if there was a good claim there, that I 
fancied I would take it, and if it belonged to the American 
Government, I would hold it; and if it did not, I did not 
want it. 



John Bradley. 



Steilacoom, November 23, 1866. 



Territory of Washington, ) 

County of Tierce. j ' 

I, George Washington Sloan, county auditor in and for 
said county and Territory, residing in said county, do hereby 



142 

certify that the foregoing depositions of Wm. P. Dougherty, 
A. J. Burge, James E. Williamson, E. S. Moore, George 
W. Shazer, E. A. Light, J. L. McDonald, Thomas M. Cham- 
bers, Dan'l E. Lane, and John Bradley, were taken before 
me, at my office in Steilacoom, in said county, on the 22d 
and 23d days of November, A. D. 1866, in pursuance of a 
verbal agreement made in my presence by "W. Carey John- 
son, Esq., on behalf of the United States, and Frank Clark, 
Esq., on behalf of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, 
and reduced to writing by me, or in my presence and under 
my direction, by persons agreed upon between the parties. 

I further certify that to each of said witnesses, before his 
examination, I administered the following oath : 

" You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give 
in the matter of the claim of the Puget's Sound Agricul- 
tural Company against the United States shall be the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God." 

I further certify that said depositions were each carefully 
read to or by said witnesses, after the same were reduced to 
writing, and then signed by them respectively. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed 
the county commissioner's seal, this twenty-third 

L L * s --l day of November, A. D. 1866. 

George W. Sloan, 
Auditor Pierce County, W. T. 



^s 



BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION 



OH THE 



HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICUL- 
TURAL COMPANIES' CLAIMS. 



In the matter of the Claim of the Pugefs Sound Agricultural 
Company against the United States of America. 

Deposition of witnesses sworn and examined in the city of 
Washington, District of Columbia, by virtue of an agree- 
ment between Eben F. Stone, Agent and Attorney for the 
United States of America, and Edward Lander, Esq., Agent 
and Attorney for the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, 
before me, Nicholas Callan, a Notary Public in and for the 
County of Washington, and District of Columbia, on the 
part of the United States. 

Testimony of John B. Chapman. | 

John B. Chapman, being duly sworn, deposeth and saith : 

Int. 1. — What is your name, age, place of residence, and 
occupation ? 

Ans. — My name is John Butler Chapman, aged 68 years, 
residence Washington, D. C, and I am a clerk in the Treasury 
Department. 

Int. 2.— Have you ever been in Washington Territory, if so, 
when ? and are you acquainted with any of the lands there 
which are claimed by the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company. 
If you say that you are, please to describe as fully as you can 
the extent and character of the lands so claimed by them. 

Ans.— I have been there. Was there in 1851 and 1852. I 

know all the lands there, and I know of their claiming it. 

{See note^ infra.) It is difficult for me describe these lands, 

unless I have a map of the United States, as I had out there. 

IIP 



146 

The Company, called the Puget's Sound Agricultural Com- 
pany, was on the Sound and what is now Washington Terri- 
tory, lying, as it was represented tome, between the Nisqually 
and the Puyallup rivers. I made a survey between those 
rivers. 

Int. 3. — Who employed you to make this survey ? 

Ans. — Mr. Tolmie, the factor or head of the Puget's Sound 
Agricultural Company. 

Int. 4. — What directions or orders, if any, did you receive 
from him in regard to the making of this survey ? State as 
particularly as you can. 

Ans. — I was to go according to the direction of one of his 
employes, Mr. Montgomery. Dr. Tolmie stated he wished 
to run around as much of the land as his cattle, sheep, and 
horses roamed over. One of his employes was ordered to 
direct around the land where they ran, to show their range. 
I was also ordered to run into this plain, so as to take the 
position of the improvements. This was all done for the pur- 
pose of mapping the land where the cattle roamed over. 

Int. 5. — Did Dr. Tolmie appoint some one to accompany 
you in making the survey ? If so, who ? 

Ans. — ^He did. He appointed Mr. Montgomery, an employe 
of the Company, who was employed for the purpose of watch- 
ing the cattle. Montgomery knew where the cattle roamed, 
and went with me to show it. I followed the directions of 
Mr. Montgomery. 

Int. 6. — Did you complete the survey, and make a plan of 
the land ? If so, what did you do with the plan ? 

Ans. — I did not complete the survey; I made a plan of [it] 
as far as we got. We commenced (see note, infra,) at the mouth 
of the Nisqually, and run up some distance, and on the bank 
of the Nisqually made a Corner, and then started across the 
country, to comprise the bottom lands and ravines, as they 
came down the mountains. After running through some des- 
perate swamps, up to our waists, we got to a plain. We then 
stopped on that line, and from a designated place, run into the 
plain to take observations where there were settlements. We 
took observations of the houses and sheep-pens, and what im- 



147 

provements were made. Then went back to the original line, at 
the place where we left it, and pursued our course. We then 
ran in that zigzag course for two or three days. We kept 
on this line until we were near the Puyallup. Left our camp 
at the corner. We came in again to the prairie for the pur- 
pose of taking observations, according to the custom of surveys. 
While we were in the plain, the reason we did not complete it 
was, some of the inhabitants that lived there, after I had been 
to all their houses, supposed it would be dangerous to them 
if Tolmie continued his surveys, and they could not get their 
land. Before we went back to the course, to start again to 
run to the Puyallup, the inhabitants got alarmed, and came 
and stopped us ; they were the former employes of the Com- 
pany ; they threatened to break my compass and other instru- 
ments ; then I quit until he got authority to continue. Then 
he, Dr. Tolmie, took me over here, to the mouth of the Nis- 
qually, and I began to plat the notes I had already taken. He 
told me to begin near the mouth of the Nisqually, and I mean- 
dered around the Sound, and don't know whether I ran to 
the Puyallup or Steilacoom, it's been so long ago. We in- 
tended to run to the Puyallup. I was directed not to include 
a man on the Sound, near the mouth of the Puyallup, because 
he was a friend. In running the outer line, I occasionally 
left the line and run in for the purpose of determining the 
position of interior objects. 

There was no line of any former survey to guide us. 

Int. 7. — Were there any land-marks, or fences, or spotted 
trees, or monuments of any kind to indicate where the line 
was, which you ran out at this time ; and did you, while run- 
ning the line, see anything to indicate that you were running 
out an old line, or were you, in your judgment, running out a 
proposed line for the first time? 

(Objected to as leading and directing the witness as to his 
answer, and asking the opinion of the witness as to what he 
was doing.) 

Ans. — There were no monuments or marks of any descrip- 
tion, or marks of trees indicating surveys on the line. There 
was nothing of the kind sought for. There were no monu- 



148 

ments or marks sought for or referred to by the guide or Mr. 
Tolmie. It was only to run, according to Montgomery's 
judgment, the line for the pasturage for cattle. I supposed 
I was running out a line for the first time. There were no 
monuments to show a previous line, nothing ; only the man 
was influenced by where the grass grew. 

Int. 8. — What did you do with the plan which you made, 
and do you know where it is now ? 

Ans. — I don't know where it is now ; I gave it to Mr. Tol- 
mie, the superintendent, who employed me. 

Int. 9. — Is your name attached to the plan which you gave 
to Mr. Tolmie ? 

Ans. — I think it is ; I drew off the notes from my field- 
book, and I gave him, Tolmie, a copy of my notes. 

Int. 10. — Please to describe, as minutely as you can, the 
condition which this land was in at the time you surveyed it, 
its quality and character, the extent and nature of the im- 
provements of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, the 
proportion of cultivated land, if any, to that which was wild 
or unimproved. 

Ans. — The whole flat land is barren, and gravelly ; if stirred 
up, remains gravelly. There is nothing in the whole area that 
will produce anything, except the alluvial in the depressions. 
There is a fine, light grassgr ows over this gravelly soil. If 
disturbed and ploughed it looks like a creek bottom. It looks 
like Pennsylvania avenue well paved. Where there are prairie 
swamps, there is grass that can be mowed. Wherever there 
are depressions by washings, potatoes, &c, can be cultivated, 
and for that reason they are sought. The alluvial spots are 
very limited. They appear to be subsided lakes; those that 
are on the plains. It will be very hard for me to tell the 
proportion of that country. I shouldn't think the one-twen- 
tieth part of the land could be tilled, or would afford a grass. 
It is a very rough guess. Englishmen have come over, 
ploughed up the ground, and built up houses, but abandoned 
them. There was not any lan^ around Fort Nisqually culti- 
vated. The Indians were fencing in a piece at the time I was 
there, before I surveyed it; but whether they cultivated it or 



149 

not I don't know. There were very few improvements claimed 
by the Company. When I surveyed it, Mr. Montgomery had 
a house, and piece of land fenced in, but these other improve- 
ments of which I have spoken were those of the persons who 
stopped me by force of arms, who ignored having anything to 
do with the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, denying the 
Company had any right to survey it at all. There were a few 
little sheep pens which were scattered over the plains. They 
were built in a circle, with snake fence about four feet high, 
for the purpose of folding sheep. Some were as large as a 
house, and some as high as two acres. I saw a great many 
sheep on the plain. 

Int. 11. — -What use, if any, was made of this land at the 
time you surveyed it, by the Puget's Sound Agricultural Com- 
pany? 

Ans. — The cattle run over a great deal of it up in the heads 
of the ravines. I couldn't see them down in the plains. The 
only use the Company ever had, judging from what they said, 
and from what I saw, was for the cattle to run over it in a state 
of nature. 

Int. 12. — Did you see any cattle, sheep, and horses there? 
If any, how many, and in what condition were they, tame or 
wild? 

Ans. — I saw sheep and horses and cattle stock. I can't tell 
how many. There were a great many sheep. The sheep were 
tame, and herded by Indians. The cattle were wild as deer; 
there were more than a thousand. They were taken as deer, 
except when driven into the corral by a particular mode to 
take them off. 

Int. 13. — Did you have any conversation with Mr. Roberts 
in regard to this survey at the time you made it or before? If 
yea, please to state what it was. 

Ans. — I had none with him at the time of the survey or be- 
fore, concerning the survey I made. 

Int. 14. — How long did you reside in Washington Terri- 
tory, and when did you leave there ? 

Ans. — I went there in March, 1850, but did not settle then 



150 

to make any improvement until February, 1851, and left 
there in June, 1852. 

Int. 15. — Have you heretofore had considerable experience 
as a surveyor of land, and are you well acquainted with the 
marks which surveyors generally use to designate a line? 

Ans. — I am well acquainted with the marks which survey- 
ors use. I have never made public surveys, but I have sur- 
veyed a great deal. 

Int. 16. — Did you not say incidentally, in reply to a former 
question, that the men who interrupted you in making the 
survey were formerly the employes of the Hudson's Bay or 
Puget's Sound Agricultural Company? 

Ans. — Most of them were ; they went there with the Com- 
pany and left it, and had filed their claims for land with the 
United States. (See note, infra.) 

Oross-Uxamination. 

Int. 1. — Have you not been troubled with deafness for some 
time, and has not the counsel been compelled to repeat fre- 
quently through your ear-trumpet portions of the questions 
put to you, in order to explain them? 

Ans. — I am very deaf; Mr. Stone has repeated the ques- 
tions ; it was through the mystification of the question that 
he repeated it ; I heard him distinctly through the trumpet ; 
I thought it was through the misapprehension of the clerks 
to understand me. (See note, infra.) 

Int. 2.'— Did you have many conversations with Dr. Tolmie 
about the land you were about to survey ? 

Ans. — I had a great many. 

Int. 3. — Did he not, in most of these conversations, speak 
of this land you were about to survey as the Company's, and 
being held by them for some time ? 

Ans. — That is what he claimed. 

(Objected to as leading.) 

Int. 4. — In making this survey, was or was not the line run 
in some instances through the woods, so as to enclose some 
wood land ? 



151 

Ans. — It was ; a great deal of the line run through the 
woods. 

Int. 5. — Did not Mr. Huggins accompany you in this sur- 
vey, or in some portions of it ? 

Ans. — I had forgot his name entirely; but a clerk and two 
other white employes were along and a corps of Indians carry- 
ing the chain. 

Int. 6. — You have stated that the alluvial soil was about 
one-twentieth of the whole; are you certain about this ? 

Ans. — Not at all ; only a guess. 

Int. !.■ — Did you not take a donation claim in the timber 
on the shores of the Sound, and lay c ,out a town-site and sell 
lots, and make a clearing; this on the land of the Company ? 

Ans. — I did ; I laid out the town-site, sold lots, and made 
a clearing ; all this on the land of the Company. They gave 
me notice to quit before I surveyed the Company's claim. I 
took my claim under the donation laws of 1850. (See note, 
infra.) 

Int. 8. — Did you consider this a good place for a town ? If 
so, for what reasons ? 

Ans. — I considered it was a good location for a town, for 
the reason that it was a very prominent place for a landing 
place ; bluff bank, very deep water, sheltered by an island 
immediately opposite to it. There were fine level banks from 
the tide-water. It was covered with a dense growth of timber, 
which no cattle had roamed through. This about four miles 
of Nisqually. 

Int. 9. — Where was the back country to support this town ? 

Ans. — If it depended upon the fertility of the country to 
support the town, it was not there as we then saw it. We 
knew it would be valuable for the exportation of the timber 
there ; that it was valuable for the facility of navigation, the 
fine harbors, the fisheries there, and the anticipation we had 
of manufactures in connection with the navigation of the sea 
to China and the Hawaiian Islands. I don't know that we 
had any other views ; I believe that is as far as we thought it 
would be of any advantage. 
Int. 10. — Do you recollect the low ground south of the fort 



152 

at Nisqually, the Muck Prairie, and the bottoms of the rivers 
and swales on this tract of land ? 

Ans. — I do not recollect any low ground until we got to 
the Nisquallj. I don't know the Muck Prairie. There were 
a great many low swales. There was no improvement when 
I went there. (See note, infra.) 

Int. 11. — Was not this fine light grass you have spoken of 
good for pasturage ? 

Ans. — It was first rate. (See note, infra.) 

Int. 12. — Do you mean to say, seriously, that when this 
land was ploughed it looked like Pennsylvania avenue well 
paved, or was it a figure of speech ? 

Ans. — I meant they might as well try to cultivate Pennsyl- 
vania avenue as places and fields I have seen ploughed up and 
laid bare after two or three years' tending, It was right in 
the open prairie, at Steilacoom ; I mean where the soldiers 
were quartered. 

Int. 13. — Were not these people who stopped your survey 
settlers on the Company's claim under the donation laws ? 

Ans. — They quit the Company and went to themselves and 
made little farms ; they intended to secure their claims in 
that way. They had settled on this land, and were living there 
as servants to the Company^ and when the donation law was 
passed they declared their intention to become citizens of the 
United States. 

Int. 14. — Do you not know that where this very land is un- 
ploughed it is excellent pasturage ? 

Ans. — It does. (See note, infra.) 

Int. 15. — Did you survey some of these claims for the set- 
tlers under the donation law? 

Ans. — Yes, a great many. 

Int. 16. — Did you pay much attention to the quality of 
land when you settled there, and did you not settle there to- 
bring on the question of the title of the Puget's Sound Agri- 
cultural Company to these lands ? 

Ans. — I did pay much attention to the quality of land. I 
did not settle there for the purpose of bringing up the ques- 
tion ; I settled there for the advantages of the location, not 



153 

believing that the Company, after mature deliberation and 
investigation as a lawyer, had any claim to that vacant land. 
I had understood all about it before I went there. I travelled 
over it and looked into it. I don't think any man took more 
notice of the quality of land than I did. I observed very 
particularly the timber and land in Oregon and Washington 
Territory; I have travelled over the whole of them. The 
agricultural properties of all the land were particularly ob- 
served by me. (See note, infra.) 

Examination-in- Chief Resumed. 

Int. 1. — Describe particularly the condition of the section 
of six hundred and forty acres on the Sound at the time you 
entered and claimed it ; and state what you did when you com- 
menced to clear it — the nature and difficulties of the under- 
taking. 

Ans. — It was a dense forest of timber and chapparal. The 
undergrowth of the chapparal was over my head ; I was lost 
in it, and could not get out for a day ; it was so densely cov- 
ered with forest that I commenced down at tide-water of the 
beach on the Sound. I lay at the edge of tide-water for sev- 
eral days and cut the brush until I got a foothold on the land; 
I then would cut away the brush sufficiently large to build a 
house. As soon as I got a place large enough for a house I 
built a log cabin. There was no outlet from there, where I 
could get to a road, except by the beach; no improvement 
made on it. It was such an impenetrable forest that no one 
appeared ever to have gone there, and when I cut a road out, 
the settlers in the neighborhood were astonished to see the 
development of the point. The cause of its being impene- 
trable was not only the thick growth of chapparal, but the 
immense amount of fallen timber. The fallen timber lay in 
such a manner, that in its natural state no horses or cattle 
could pass through. This forest continued up to within half 
or a mile of Nisqually. I took particular notice that there 
was no trace of an Indian or white man had ever been there, 
for I thought that would be made evidence of occupation, ex- 



154 

cept a point where the Indians always camped on the tide- 
water line, which was in the middle of my claim, and where 
I lived. This tract, and forest, and chapparal, as I have 
described, was about three miles south, about three miles on 
the high land beyond my claim. Then toward Fort Steilacoom 
it was about one and a half mile. I run it, but don't recol- 
lect the length. I cut a road both ways. {See note, infra,) 

Int. 2. — What was done, if anything, in regard to the title 
of this land, by either you or Dr. Tolmie, after he gave you 
notice that the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company claimed 
the land which you had taken ? 

Ans. — I commenced a suit against Dr. Tolmie, before I sur- 
veyed the land, to quiet the title alleging that the Company 
had no title under the treaty, to this wild part ; showing that 
his employes on possession alone could claim it. I asked Dr. 
Tolmie, on behalf of the Company, if he would not agree on a 
case to try the title before the Supreme Court. He declined 
doing it. I then commenced the suit. I think he said he 
wanted to show his title by survey. There was a difficulty in 
his getting a surveyor. There was a great deal of animosity 
about it. I told him I would survey it myself for him. It 
was to see if there were any defined lines or boundaries to his 
claim. I surveyed it wherever they directed me, with par- 
ticular observations as to whether there were any marks. I 
filed a case in Court, and asked an injunction. The court de- 
clined to grant one, because I was already in possession. The 
Puget Sound Agricultural Company did not come into Court, 
they would not do it, to try the title. I left them immediately 
afterwards, and have not been there since. [See note, infra.) 

John B. Chapman, 
With the corrections. 

Washington, D. C, April 5, 1866. 

When Mr. Chapman first read over the foregoing deposition, 
two days after it was taken, but as soon as my clerk could 
write out a fair copy, he (Mr. Chapman,) made the following 
corrections : 

To the answer of the 1st Int., he says : I was there in 1850, 



155 

1851, 1852. I know all the lands there, and I know of their 
claiming some on Puget Sound. 

To the 6th Int. We commenced south of the Fort, between 
the mouth of the Nisqually and the Fort, at a station or stake 
made by myself. While plotting the survey Tolmie requested 
me to begin at the starting point, between the Fort and the 
Nisqually river, and run to the Sound below the mouth, and 
then meander the Sound north. I do not recollect how far 
we run towards the Steilacoom or Puyallup ; I do not think 
we crossed Steilacoom. 

In answer to Int. 16. That answer ought to be corrected. 
They wero the old employes of the Company, and remained 
on the lands they were put on by the Company, but did not 
any longer serve the Company, but claimed to be independent 
farm[er]s, British subjects, and when the word of the dona- 
tion law of Congress came they filed intention of United States 
citizenship. 

In answer to cross-Int. 1. — I answered thus : I am very 
deaf, but Mr. Stone wrote down the questions and read 
them very plain. I heard him distinctly, but before I an- 
swered any question you all appeared to be disputing among 
yourselves, and I had to wait, after I had commenced to an- 
swer the question, until you all subsided, and then answer 
word by word. 

In answer to cross-Int. 7. — I never answered such a ques- 
tion in that way. I laid out a town-site and sold lots on 
land on the Sound, but did not believe it to belong to the Pu- 
get Sound Company. I said I used to be considered a good 
lawyer in Indiana, and thought I could construe a treaty, the 
supreme law of the land, too well to believe the Company had 
any title to that land. I never did, nor do not to this day, 
believe I was on the Company's land, as contemplated in the 
treaty. 

In answer to cross-Int. 10. — I stated distinctly that the 
survey I made did not take in any of the Nisqually bottom, 
but run on high land, near the Fort, until we struck the 
bottom, and made a corner, and struck directly out from it 
through the timber country and swamps. 



156 

In answer to cross-Ints. 11, 14. — In a state of nature it is 
good pasturage, but if used much, it is destroyed. 

In answer to cross-Int. 16. — I said I had travelled over 
great portion of the California and Oregon mountains, and 
my special notices were the soil, quality, and availability 
of every spot of ground ; more exclusive travel and close 
observation of soil, climate, and topography, than any other 
man that visited the country. 

Examination-in- Chief Resumed. 

In answer to Int. 1. — Half a day the sun came out. It 
ought to have been inserted that after I had erected a house, 
he sent down a posse of British subjects with a written notice 
to leave, that he claimed it. 

! In answer to the 2d interrogatory. — I first proposed to the 
agent, Tolmie, to agree on a case in the Supreme Court of the 
United States to try the title of the land, under the treaty 
of 1846, but he refused to do so, and I then commenced a 
suit. I filed a declaration in the Supreme Court, at Oregon 
City. This was before I surveyed it. The Company would 
not appear, and the Court would not take further cognizance of 
the case. I stated that I came directly to Washington city, 
and took Joe Lane, a Hudson's Bay man, with me to President 
Fillmore, and stated the case and the claim of this British 
Company. He requested me to file the facts with the Secre- 
tary of State. (While I was engaged drawing up the case, I 
was taken sick here in Washington and filed what I drew up. 
I was sick a long time, and never recollected what I done.) I 
did so, and never went back. 

J. B. Chapman, 
With the original. 



157 

t 

Testimony of D. B. McKibbin. 

D. B. McKibbin, being duly sworn according to law, says: 

Int. 1. — What is your name, age, place of residence, and 
occupation ? 

Ans. — D. B. McKibbin ; my occupation, that of an officer 
in the United States Army, brevet brigadier general of vol* 
unteers ; thirty-six years of age ; I have no particular place 
of residence. 

Int. 2. — Have you not lived in Washington Territory? If 
yea, when and where did you reside in said Territory? 

Ans. — I have. My permanent place of residence was Fort 
Steilacoom. I was there near about three years, in 1856, 
185T, 1860, and 1861. 

Int. 8.< — Are you, or not, acquainted with the propei^y 
claimed by the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, be- 
tween the Nisqually and the Puyallup rivers, called the Nis- 
qually Plains ? 

Ans. — I am acquainted with the property, though not 
knowing the exact limits of their claim. I am acquainted 
with all that country between the Nisqually and the Puyallup. 

Int. 4. — Please to describe, as minutely as you can, the 
character and the condition of the land at these plains ; giv- 
ing the quantity oi arable land there, as compared with the 
prairie and woodland. 

Ans. — On the plains, the soil is almost entirely gravel ; 
there is a little black loam with it which is immediately 
washed out on cultivation, and there are spots of timber 
scattered over it, and lakes. Principally pine timber, some 
few oak trees — scrub-oak. 

Int. 5. — Is any part of this land fit for tillage ? If yea, what 
part, and what proportion does this tillage land bear to the 
whole tract? 

Ans. — I suppose a great portion of it can be tilled, but not 
be productive. I think not one-twelfth part of it would be 
taken up by any man in a decent country, and that part only 



158 

moderately good, except some few spots ; a very small pro- 
portion of that one-twelfth. 

Int. 6. — What opportunities did you have, while at the fort, 
to become acquainted with the character of the land at these 
plains, and how often have you traveled over it? 

Arts. — I have ridden over them hundreds of times — I could 
not begin to count — in different directions, and in that way 
had an opportunity of seeing and judging of the soil. I was 
so well acquainted with them that I never took a road without 
it went direct to a place, unless there was some obstacle in 
the way. I mean by that that I was so well acquainted with 
the country that I could go to any part of it without taking 
the regular road, and could have ridden to almost any part of 
it in the darkest night. I surveyed the roads and part of 
the country for Mr George Gibbs in 1856 or 1857. 

jfnt. 7. — Were there any buildings or improvements when 
you were there which were in the possession of the Puget's 
Sound Agricultural Company ? If yea, please to describe 
them particularly. 

Arts. — At Fort Nisqually there was a house in which the 
chief trader, Dr. Tolmie, lived, which was the most valuable ; 
several small log houses used as stores, and others as out- 
houses. Out at their farm, about Muck Creek, there were 
one or two good log houses, and others that were not worth 
much — very little indeed. Mr. Huggins put up a house there, 
I think ; I don't remember whether it was log or not ; it was 
one of the good houses there. I don't remember any other 
houses. At the landing below Nisqually, and on the plains, 
there were log huts ; I did not consider them worth more than 
the logs. There is a house there occupied by Dean, who was 
formerly an employe of the Puget's Sound Company ; but 
whether it belonged to that Company or not, I can't say ; 
and also at Fort Steilacoom there were several log houses, 
which were worth nothing but for fire-wood, save the improve- 
ments put on by officers at the fort. 

Int. 8. — How much of the land at the plains which are 
claimed by the Company was enclosed or fenced, if any ? 

Ans. — That would be a hard matter to say, as there was a 



159 

very little enclosed. I should not think the one-hundredth 
part was enclosed or fenced. 

Int. 9. — Was there any tillable land at these plains, of any 
extent, except that which was on the edges of the streams and 
lakes ? 

(Objected to as leading.) 

Ans. — There was not. 

Int. 10.— What proportion of the land at these plains, if 
any, was, in your judgment, covered with pine timber and 
lakes and rocky tracts? I mean by rocky tracts, rocky and 
unproductive soil. 

Ans. — The stony ground, pine timber, and lakes, and what 
I should say was unproductive ground, that is, ground used 
once or twice, is eleven-twelfths. I call the ground unpro- 
ductive because the Puget's Sound Company, after farming it 
for a year or two, move their farms to another place. 

Int. 11. — What use was made of the oak trees, if any, that 
grew on these plains? 

Ans. — Fire-wood ; I never heard it was used for anything 
else. 

Int. 12. — What was the character of the pine or fir trees 
that grew on these plains, for purposes of timber, as compared 
with the fir trees that grew on the adjoining country, if you 
know ? 

Ans. — There was very little of it that was fit for spars ; it 
was pretty much the same as timber in other parts of that 
country, only it could not be easily taken to the mills. 

Int. 13. — How was the land on these plains affected, gener- 
ally, by cultivation; was it improved or spoiled by tillage? 

Ans. — It was utterly ruined. The gravel and sand all came 
up to the top, and the loam washed in. There was so little 
of the loam it could not be seen after one or two years' culti- 
vation, except on the borders of the streams. 

Int. 14. — Have you any knowledge of the value of this 
land at the plains ? If yea, please to state what, in your 
opinion, is the average value of it per acre, limiting your 
answer to the land described on the map here produced, 
which was prepared at the request of Dr. Tolmie. 



160 

Ans. — In comparison with other public lands that I have 
seen for sale, as a general thing, I don't think it was worth 
one-fifth. I, certainly, if I was buying land, would not give 
twenty-five cents an acre for the whole plain. Its greatest 
value, as pasture land, has, in a manner, run out, because of 
a red sorrel which is spreading over it, and which can't be 
stopped. 

Int. 15.— How many troops are generally stationed at the 
fort at Steilacoom, and when was this fort established ? 

Arts.-— It varied from two to six companies, but I think the 
average would be about three, as far as I can recollect. I 
don't know when the fort was established. 

Cross-Examination. 

Int. 1. — At the time you resided at Fort Steilacoom, were 
you stationed there as an officer of the United States army ? 
If so, what was your rank, and were you a graduate of West 
Point, or appointed from civil life ? 

Ans. — I was ; I was a second lieutenant, and appointed from 
civil life. 

Int. 2.— Are there not on the plains you have spoken of 
some one hundred and fifty settlers engaged in farming and 
agriculture? 

Ans. — No, sir; I don't think there were; I don't think 
there were fifty. 

Int. 3. — Do you not know that there were on this claim, as 
shown on the map, a grist-mill and several saw-mills for 
making timber ? 

Ans.— I don't at this time remember but one grist-mill and 
one saw-mill, both Judge Chambers', both on the same stream. 

Int. 4. — Do you not recollect a saw-mill erected near the 
fort, above Judge Chambers', and another near the old Nis- 
qually landing on Sequalitchew creek ? 

Ans. — I do. Bird had a saw and grist-mill in the same 
building, about a mile and a quarter from the fort ; and Dr. 
Webber had a saw-mill at Sequalitchew, near the Nisqually 
landing. 



161 

Int. 5. — Do you not know that the land cultivated as a gar- 
den by the soldiers produced very largely, and that it was 
good land, though stony ? 

Ans. — I do. I don't that it was very stony. That was a 
little spot with a stream running through it. I don't suppose 
there was more than fifteen acres of it. I was asked generally. 

Int. 6. — Did you ever cultivate any of this land, or any 
other land, as a farmer? 

Ans.— Not on this land. I did out on Muckleshoot prairie, 
on White river, near the foot of the mountains. I also culti- 
vated land at our camp up on the northwest boundary, the 
49th parallel. 

Int. 7. — Do you not know that the prairie called "Muck" 
is fertile land; and that all the swales, low grounds, and lands 
through which the small streams flow, are good tillable lands? 

Ans. — I don't know that the whole of the Muck Prairie is 
good land ; I know that part of it is moderately good. The 
largest stones that are to be found on the plain are found on 
Muck Prairie, and, as I said before, along the banks of the 
streams there is a little good land. As for low places, where 
the loam can wash down into them, it is pretty good land 
until it wears out, though it does not wear out so quick as the 
other. 

Int. 8. — You state you were there three years ; during that 
time did you see any of these low places worn out, or is this 
merely an opinion of yours ? 

Ans. — I have. There is the farm of George Gibbs, for in- 
stance, which has the wash from the hills, is in a low place on 
the bank of a stream, and in spite of manuring and everything 
else is completely worn out ; and the land beside Dr. Tolmie's 
house, on the opposite side of the creek, is also pretty well 
worn out. 

Int. •0. — When you speak of stony lands, do you mean lands 
covered with large stones, or not ? 

Ans. — I mean gravel, as a general thing. There are some 
of them as large as a hen's egg, most of them not half that 
size, and that intermixed with sand. There is a little loam 
with it, in its natural state. 
12 P 



162 

Int. 10. — Do you not know that these plains are covered 
with grass and afford good pasturage for sheep and cattle? 

Arts. — They have been, but were not so good when I left 
there as they had been. Red sorrel, in a measure, was spoil- 
ing them, and cultivation was wearing them out. 

Int. 11. — With what lands do you compare them, when you 
say they are not worth one-fifth of them? 

Ans. — I compare them with lands in the Mississippi Valley, 
lands at Whidbey's Island, the Muckleshoot Prairie, and Por- 
ter's Prairie. I was speaking more particularly of lands in 
the Mississippi Valley and the West, or lands that could be 
bought from the Government at the Government price. 

Int. 12. — Are there any prairies on the Puget's Sound of 
equal extent, or as suitable for the pasturage of sheep and 
cattle as are these plains ? 

Ans. — No ; I think not. None that I know of. 

Int. 13. — Was not the garrison at Steilacoom generally sup- 
plied with beef by the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company ? 

Ans. — Yes, sir. It was up to the last few years, 1856^7, 
but not in 1860-1. I know it had been generally heretofore. 

Int. 14. — Was not one of the buildings you have spoken of 
at Fort Nisqually a store house of some sixty by forty feet 
in dimensions, and one story and one half high? 

Ans. — I really don't remember the measurement of it, nor 
of the one half story. There was a number of those log houses 
connected together. 

Int. 15. — Might not these buildings have been larger than 
you have mentioned, and of better quality ? 

Ans. — There may have been one store-house of sixty by 
forty feet. I don't think there was more. 

D. B. McKibbin, 
Bvt. Brig. Gfen. Vols. 

Washington City, D. C, 28*A April, 1866. 



163 



Testimony of Arthur A. Denny. 

Arthur A. Denny, being duly sworn according to law, says : 

Int. 1. — What is your name, age, place of residence, and 
occupation ? 

Ans. — Arthur A. Denny ; aged forty-three years ; resi- 
dence, Seattle, Washington Territory; and occupation, at 
present, Delegate from Washington Territory to Congress. 

Int. 2. — Are you acquainted with the property in Washing- 
ton Territory, at and near Nisqually, claimed by the Puget's 
Sound Agricultural Company, which is indicated on the map 
here produced ? 

Ans. — I am somewhat acquainted with that piece of country. 

Int. 3. — Have you any knowledge of the limits of the claim 
of this Company at Nisqually? If yea, please to describe 
them as nearly as you can. 

Ans. — I can't say that I have any definite knowledge of the 
limits of the claim. 

Int. 4. — Please to look at the map here produced, upon 
which is indicated the extent of the claim of this Company at 
Nisqually, and state whether you are acquainted with the 
country which is embraced in the lines indicated upon this 
map ? 

Ans. — I have been over or through that section of country 
represented on this map. I have traveled entirely across it 
in one direction and by one route, and traveled over it to 
some extent in addition. 

Int. 5. — Please to describe this tract of land which is 
covered by this claim of the Company, giving the general 
character and the character of particular portions of it as 
fully as you can. 

Ans. — That portion of it bordering on the NisquaUy and 
smaller streams is generally a fine quality of soil. What we 
might call the uplands are rather poor and sterile. My im- 
pression of it is that the greater portion is prairie. The 
prairie portion is, generally speaking, of poor quality. 

Int. 6. — Have you had any experience heretofore as a sur- 



164 

veyor in Washington Territory, and has your attention or not 
been directed by your interests and pursuits to the value and 
character of land in Washington Territory? 

Ans. — I have not followed surveying in Washington Terri- 
tory as an occupation, but my attention has been directed to 
the character and value of lands in that Territory. 

Int. 7. — What, in your opinion, is the value of the land per 
acre, which is embraced in the limits of this claim of the Pu- 
get's Sound Company at Nisqually, giving the value per acre 
as nearly as you can of the different portions, separating the 
good part from the bad, and giving also, if you can, what you 
should think would be a fair average price for the whole ? 

Ans. — There are portions of it which are comparatively 
valueless, and there are other portions which, being better, 
are valuable. My experience in those matters in that country 
is this : The poor lands would hardly sell at all, and the rich 
lands are in considerable demand. 

Int. 8. — When did you first become acquainted, from your 
own observation, with the lands covered by this claim, and 
what caused you to observe them at that time ? 

Ans. — I first saw it in the spring of 1852. I was a new- 
comer in the country, and was looking with a view of locating 
and settling in the Territory. 

Int. 9. — Did you, at the time, take special notice of these 
lands with a view to forming a judgment of their character 
and quality, and how much of this claim did you then ob- 
serve? 

Ans. — Yes, sir ; so far as I traveled within the bounds of 
the lands designated. I did not travel extensively over the 
claim at that time, but principally in the vicinity of the old 
fort at Nisqually. 

Int. 10. — Have you since then had occasion to examine and 
observe these lands ; if yea, when, and to what extent, and 
for what purpose? 

Ans. — Since then I have been over the land more exten- 
sively. So far as my observations have since extended, I 
have found the prairie to be of a very poor quality. The 



165 

observations which I have made there, in the main, were 
casual, as I was passing through and over the country. 

Int. 11. — Are you acquainted with the claim of this Com- 
pany at the Cowlitz Farms, so-called, in Washington Terri- 
tory? 

Ans.—I have been at that point, but cannot say that I am 
particularly acquainted with it. 

Cross-Examination. 

Int. 1. — In passing over these plains^ have not your travels 
been confined to the usually traveled road between Seattle 
and Olympia, running along the northern border of the claim, 
near the Sound? 

Ans. — Yes, sir; that is so. 

Int. 2. — With the exception of the observation you gave to 
the plains around the old fort, have you ever particularly 
observed any other portion of the plains off the traveled 
road? 

Ans. — No, sir. 

Int. 3. — Have you ever visited the Muck Prairies, or the 
farms located on the swales and lowlands? 

Ans. — I have not visited the Muck Farms. I have seen 
farms on the swales or lowlands on the traveled road? 

Int. 4. — Do you know anything of the productiveness of 
those farms you noticed on the traveled road? 

Ans. — Yes, sir; they are considered very productive. 

Int. 5. — Do you know that when these uplands are not too 
much depastured they afford good and valuable pasturage for 
sheep, cattle, and horses ? 

Ans. — Well, I should say this: they do for a short time, 
"but are not durable. 

Int. 6. — Are not those prairies the largest body of pastur- 
age lands around the Sound in any direction? 

Ans.— They are the largest body of prairie or plains, but 
not, in my judgment, affording the best pasture. 

Int. 7. — What other body of lands afford better pasturage? 



166 

Ans. — I regard the bottoms and the valley lands as afford- 
ing the best pasturage. 

Int. 8. — Do you know anything of these lands being hired 
in summer by drovers from Oregon, for pasturage for their 
stock? 

Ans. — No, sir; I don't know that I do. 

Int. 9. — Do you know that large numbers of stock are 
shipped from Steilacoom to Victoria? 

Ans. — Yes, sir. 

Int. 10. — How far is Seattle, your residence, from Steila- 
coom? 

Ans. — I have usually estimated it at thirty-six miles. 

Int. 11. — What is the extent of the largest of the prairies 
you know of outside of these plains, of the character you 
speak of, as being better for pasturage than those plains? 

Ans. — I don't know of any other, unless it be Whidbey's 
Island. On the Sound I don't know of any. 

A. A. Denny. 

Washington City, D. C, May 11, 1866. 



Testimony of Dr. George Suckley. 

Br. G-eorge Suckley, being duly sworn according to law, says: 

Int. 1. — What is your name, age, place of residence, and 
occupation? 

Ans. — My name is George Suckley ; aged thirty-five years ; 
place of residence, New York city ; I am a physician, but not 
in practice. 

Int. 2. — Have you ever resided in Washington Territory? 
If yea, when and where,' and for how long a period, and what 
was your occupation while there? 

Ans. — I resided there twice. The first time from Decem- 
ber, 1853, to about the 1st of August, 1854 ; the second time 
from January, 1856, to January, 1857. I lived eight months 
of the interim between these two periods at the Dalles, which 
was separated from Washington Territory by the Columbia 



167 

river, and I frequently crossed. I was an assistant surgeon 
in the United States army. 

Int. Z. — Please to look at the map, here produced, and state 
whether or not you recognize the same as a correct delinea- 
tion of the country between the Nisqually and the Puyallup 
rivers, called the Nisqually Plains. 

Ans. — In the main, it is correct. 

Int. 4. — Are you acquainted with the country, indicated on 
said map bj a black lin«, which is claimed by the Puget's 
Sound Agricultural Company ? If yea, please to describe its 
character and condition as fully as you can. 

Ans. — A great part of this tract I know very well. I 
liunted, and fished, and rode over it to see patients scattered 
for miles around Fort Steilacoom. The exact lines drawn 
on the map as a part of the claim I cannot swear to having 
been on, but the tract, as a whole, I know nearly as well as 
any man living. The country is very peculiar. There is a 
large amount of open ground that are called plain or prairie, 
also many patches of woods. The plains were crossed by 
streams and brooks ; and there were many lakes, varying in 
size, most of which were margined by timber. In agricul- 
tural value, the soil of the untimbered parts was nearly iden- 
tical with that of the Hempstead Plains, on Long Island, 
!New York — a thin surface-soil on the higher ground, with 
many round pebbles intermixed. Around Fort Steilacoom the 
ground had been ploughed. The sod had apparently been de- 
stroyed, and the land looked nearly like desolation. There 
were swales, and in the vicinities of water-couses the land was 
mucn better ; but compared to the whole tract, the amount of 
good ground was small. There were lines and depressions in 
these plains, frequently long, but very narrow, much richer 
than the ground on the general level of the plateau. The 
Hudson's Bay and Puget's Sound Companies had general 
control of that region before I went there. The pasturage 
had been over-used, and the grass nearly destroyed, partly 
by being eaten too closely, and partly by the introduction, as 
it was said, by the sheep, of sorrel, which had nearly exter- 
minated the natural grasses. The increase of grasshoppers 



168 

also greatly deteriorated the value of the pasturage. The 
plains were roamed over by large herds of cattle, in a very 
wild state ; they were neither guarded nor herded, but there 
were about twelve thousand sheep that were carefully tended 
by shepherds ; not in fenced enclosures, except about shearing 
time. The timber, where found, was very dense, as a rule,, 
and many of the trees enormous. I have seen many on that 
tract fully five feet in diameter. In the vicinity of a farm 
there, called the Koss farm, on the map, there were many 
oaks like what we on the Atlantic call scrub-oaks ; but on 
the plains there were here and there scattered oaks of re- 
spectable size. Near Fort Steilacoom there were about a 
dozen, averaging about twenty inches in diameter, as near as 
I can recollect. This oak timber was not abundant, and was 
but seldom used. The timber which was most used for ship- 
ment or otherwise was a kind of fir, known to naturalists as 
the Abies Douglassii. There was another tree known to natu- 
ralists as the Thuja gigantea and to the settlers as the cedar? 
frequently of an enormous size. 

Int. 5. — Have you paid, heretofore, considerable attention; 
to botany and geology, and did you not while there observe 
carefully this tract of country with reference to its botanical 
and geological character ? 

Ans. — I took great interest in the country in every way y 
and, perhaps, scientifically understood it better than any man 
there living at that time, except, perhaps, Mr. George Gibbs- 

Int. 6. — Did you not, also, observe this country with refer- 
ence to its agricultural and other uses ? If yea, please to state, 
in your judgment, for what uses it is mainly valuable, if at alL 

Ans. — As a boy and a young man I lived a great deal on 
farms, and took much interest in crops and stock. As to the 
agricultural value of the so-called arable land near Nisqually, 
it was, compared to the quality of land in Ohio, Illinois, and 
Minnesota, very poor, except in the small swales and valleys. 
To make the plains proper, productive. to an ordinarily desira- 
ble extent, it would require much labor, careful manuring, 
and great attention. There were small strips, however, which 
were very good. 



169 

Int. 7. — What buildings and improvements, if any, did you 
observe on this tract which was occupied by the Puget's Sound 
Agricultural Company, and what are their situation, charac- 
ter, and condition and value ? Please to state as particularly 
as you can. 

Arts. — I can't draw a line between the Hudson's Bay and 
Puget's Sound Companies' possessions. The main post was 
called Fort Nisqually. There were a number of rude build- 
ings scattered about the country that were inhabited by men 
who were or had been servants or agents of the Puget's Sound 
Company. Fort Nisqually consisted of a number of buildings 
inside of a stockade built of posts, the area enclosed being, 
as near as I can remember, two hundred feet square. The 
buildings inside the stockade were of rough construction, and 
of a dilapidated appearance. I built a hospital in the army 
with soldiers' labor, which, intrinsically, seemed to me much 
more valuable, foot by foot and space by space. The stockade 
itself was of good solid posts. There was an excellent gar- 
den near the fort, and a fine stream of water close by, where 
the sheep of the Company were washed before shearing. 

Int. 8. — Did you, while there, observe any cattle or sheep 
which you supposed to be the property of the Puget's Sound 
Agricultural Company ? If yea, please to describe the cattle 
and sheep which you saw. 

Am. — The Nisqually Plains, when I first went there, were 
inhabited by deer, wild cats, Indian ponies, sheep, and cattle. 
The woods bordering the plains were infested with panthers — 
so much so that Dr. Tolmie spoke of the wild cats and pan- 
thers killing the calves ; and in 1856 I got a lynx that was 
killed on the plains about midway between Fort Nisqually and 
Fort Steilacoom. I also got the skin of a panther, in 1854, 
that was killed within a mile and a half of Fort Steilacoom. 
I ate elk or moose meat killed within the same radius. The 
whole country is gloriously beautiful — almost a dead level for 
thirty miles, where Mount Rainier towers up, perpetually cov- 
ered with snow, more beautiful and more superb than twenty 
Mont Blancs. At Fort Steilacoom we had the treasures of 
the deep salt water, in view of a snow-covered Alpine moun- 



170 

tain ; the prairie, the forest, the lake, and the brook ; oysters, 
star-fish, salmon, trout, venison, elk, wild cattle, bear, berries, 
flowers, and grouse, muscles, soft-shell crabs, wild pigeons, 
and a paradise of a climate, except when it rained. The gar- 
rison at Fort Steilacoom subsisted on the beef furnished by 
the Puget's Sound Company. The condition of the cattle, so 
far as flesh goes, was very poor. The cattle, as a rule, were 
killed like the buffalo — by shooting. I know that the cattle 
were in such a wild, unreclaimed condition that it was really 
dangerous to ride on the plains on a slow or obstinate horse. 

Int. 9. — Have you any knowledge of Dr. Tolmie giving au- 
thority to any individual to kill any of the cattle of the Com- 
pany ? If yea, please to state what you know on this subject. 

Arts. — I don't know. 

Int. 10. — Have you ever visited or observed the Cowlitz 
Farms, so-called, which were occupied by the Puget's Sound 
Company ? If yea, please to describe the character and condi- 
tion and the value of these. farms, when you visited there. 

Ans. — The general section of country in which those farms 
lay was very rich, very good, and very productive. I have 
been to the Cowlitz Farm, I think it was in 1855. All that 
the Cowlitz Farms then needed was good transportation, and 
easy access to market, which it had not then and has not now. 
The buildings were of a general, cheap, home-made descrip- 
tion, of the character of the Company's edifices found else- 
where in that section of country. 

Cross-Examination. 

Int. 1. — Was there not, during the time of your residence at 
Fort Steilacoom, a large number of settlers on these plains en- 
gaged in agricultural pursuits ? 

Ans. — Yes, sir. 

Int. 2. — Did these settlers have stock of their own that pas- 
tured on the plains ? 

Ans. — Many of them had. • 

Int. 3. — Was there not, in the year 1859, at the time you 



171 

left there, a large amount of stock finding subsistence on these 
plains ? 

Ans. — Yes ; stock belonging to the settlers, a large amount 
for that particular district, but not large as compared to a 
similar area of land in Ohio, or Illinois. 

Int. 4. — Were there not more cattle and stock in 1859 than 
in earlier years ? 

Ans. — I can't answer that question, sir. 

Int. 5. — Did these settlers you have spoken of depend on 
their cattle and stock alone, or were they also engaged in cul- 
tivating the land? 

Ans. — There were two classes of settlers ; one that de- 
pended more particularly upon their flocks and herds, and the 
other that relied principally on their grain and other crops. 
Nearly all had vegetable gardens. 

Int. 6. — Did these men you speak of as raising grain and 
other crops, find land that did not need manure and careful 
attention to raise their crops in ? 

Ans. — They found small patches and strips. 

Int. 7. — Do you not know that there were large spaces of 
low prairies that were rich and fertile, lands, and swales, and 
low grounds on the rivers and streams that were also rich and 
fertile ? 

Ans. — Compared to the whole size of the tract, there were 
not ; but often in a tract of six hundred and forty acres there 
would be a very handsome proportion of good land, but not in 
every six hundred and forty acres. 

Int. 8. — Do you not recollect more than six hundred and 
forty acres of good land in one tract on this claim ? 

Ans. — I never yet, to my knowledge, saw six hundred and 
forty acres of open ground lying together, as the United States 
surveyors lay off sections of six hundred and forty acres, 
within that tract, that was respectably rich. 

Int. 9. — Did not these settlers you have spoken of dispose 
of and sell their claims occasionally? If so, what was the com- 
mon price for a three hundred and twenty acre tract ? 

Ans. — Yes sir, they sold. The price received was accord- 
ing to the improvements, which consisted in the buildings and 



172 

fences. There was more land to be sold than there were 
buyers ; and the best farms were not offered for sale at all. 
The Dougherty claim was a very valuable one. I never heard 
that he wanted to sell it. 

Int. 10. — Have you not, in describing these pasture lands, 
compared them with the rich lands of the Ohio and Missis- 
sippi valleys? 

Ans. — I compared these lands with the States of Ohio and 
Illinois, and the Hempstead plains of Long Island. 

Int. 11. — Do you know well the agricultural qualities of 
any county or district in New York? If you do, state how 
it compared with this tract, for say twelve miles square of 
each. 

Ans. — I am acquainted with Orange, Sullivan, Duchess, 
and Ulster counties in the State of New York, very well, be- 
sides being acquainted somewhat with others. It is my belief 
and conviction that twelve miles square of the Puget's Sound 
land claimed by the Company is naturally of greater agricul- 
tural value than a tract of land of the same size in Duchess 
county, New York. 

Int. 12. — Do you know anything of the Victoria market, 
since the mining discoveries, for produce and stock, and the 
value of those lands as affording pasturage for stock for that 
market? 

Ans. — No, sir ; not from my own knowledge. 

Int. 13. — Are you well acquainted with the country around 
the head and shores of what is known as Puget's Sound? If 
so, state whether it is or is not generally a timbered country, 
and whether the tract is not the only large and open prai- 
rie anywhere around the Sound. 

Ans. — I was very well acquainted with the country, and my 
remembrance of it is very clear. There was a very large 
tract of prairie near the head of the Sound, not included in 
the claim. There were a great many prairies of large and 
small size scattered through the country; but as a rule, there 
Was not as large an amount of open land together in one body 
as in the tract claimed by this Company. This strip of prai- 
rie commenced about five miles from Olympia, and ran down 



173 

to near Skookum Chuck. The mail road from Olympia to 
the Cowlitz passed through this open country. There were, 
however, patches of timber along the route, but the section 
was scarcely more heavily timbered than the Nisqually plains 
were in spots. 

Int. 14. — Are not the shores of the Sound on the left, fac- 
ing towards the ocean, from Olympia at the head, to Port 
Townshend at the foot of it, almost an unbroken forest, and 
on the right shore to the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, 
with the exception of the prairies south of the Nisqually, and 
this great prairie called the Nisqually plains, is it not nearly 
all one forest? 

Arts. — On the left bank, from Olympia to Port Townsend, 
there was scarcely any natural open ground at all; nearly 
all the land is very heavily timbered. The right shore (facing 
the ocean) is very densely timbered from the Puyallup to Bel- 
lingham Bay, except the salt marshes close to the water. 
From the Puyallup to the Nisqually, there is much open 
country. 

Int. 15. — You have spoken of settlers selling their claims; 
do you not know of farms that could not have been bought of 
the claimants for less than a large sum above the value of the 
improvements on the Nisqually plains? 

Ans. — -There were good farms there that were held on to, 
the occupants holding on partly because the land was good in 
their estimation, and partly because they did not want to move, 
from a sort of vis inertia. 

GEORGE SUCKLEY, 
Late Surgeon and Brevet Col. U. S. Vols. 

Washington City, D. C, May 19, 1866. 



Testimony of Hugh A. Goldsborough. 

Mugh A. Gf-oldsborough, being duly sworn according to law? 
says : 
Int. 1. — What is your name, place of residence, and present 
occupation ? 



174 

Ans.' — Hugh Allan Goldsborough ; I reside in Washington 
City, and am, at present, a chief clerk in a bureau of the Navy 
Department — the Bureau of Construction and Repair. 

Int. 2. — Have you ever resided in Washington Territory ? 
If yea, when and where, and for how long a period? 

Ans. — Yes, sir; I resided principally at Olympia and Fort 
Steilacoom, (longer at Olympia than anywhere else in Wash- 
ington Territory,) from 1850, to December, 1863, with occa- 
sional absences. 

Int. 3. — Are you acquainted with a tract of land in Wash- 
ington Territory called the Nisqually Plains ? 

Ans. — Yes, sir. 

Int. 4. — Please to look at the map here produced, and state 
whether you are acquainted with the land there described as 
the land claimed by the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company. 

Ans. — Yes, sir ; I have been over a great portion of it 
very frequently. 

Int. 5. — Please to describe, as fully as you can, the char- 
acter and condition and value of the land embraced within 
the claim of the said Company, distinguishing between the 
portions that are capable of tillage, and the portions that are 
suitable only for pasturage, and the portions that are covered 
with wood, and the value of each. 

Ans. — The portion of land claimed by the Puget's Sound 
Agricultural Company, that I understood, while residing there, 
from Dr.. Tolmie, was almost entirely confined to the prairie 
land ; it did not go down to the Nisqually river on the south, 
or the Puyallup on the north; when I say north and south, I 
mean northerly and southerly; but included generally the 
prairie land within the woods all around, extending east- 
wardly to the foot-hills. This I received from Dr. Tolmie, the 
agent of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company. I was 
more impressed with the correctness o'f this understanding of 
the extent of the claim from a conversation I had with Dr. 
Tolmie with reference to the town of Steilacoom. He told 
me that the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company made no 
claim to the land on which the town of Steilacoom was situ- 
ated, because it was in the woods and outside the prairies. 



175 

By far the larger portion of the claim is prairie, and, so far 
as my judgment goes, with the exception of one-tenth, it is 
very inferior land. For agricultural purposes, I would say 
that nine-tenths of it is not worth fifty cents an acre. The 
balance may be worth from three to five dollars per acre. 
There is a small quantity of crooked and stumpy oak trees 
scattered here and there ; but the result of my personal ob- 
servation with a friend, who was engaged in the saw-mill busi- 
ness, was that these oak trees were not worth the trouble and 
expense of cutting down and transportation. I will also say 
that in making this observation in regard to the oak trees, I 
was myself engaged in the saw-mill business, I went there 
for the purpose of seeing if I could get oak timber on the 
plains. The testimony that I have given, in regard to the 
value of this land and oak timber, has been, I believe, univer- 
sally concurred in by a great number of persons with whom I 
have conversed. (The statements made by Dr. Tolmie ob- 
jected to, it not appearing to be within the limits of his 
agency, and to be defining the limits of the principal's estate 
by the mere careless statement of an agent, and as hearsay 
also. The part in reference to the general statements of 
others objected to as hearsay.) 

Int. 6. — Were there any buildings or improvements of any 
kind within the limits of this claim, which were owned and 
occupied by the Company? If yea, please to describe their 
character and value as fully as you can. 

Arts. — There were some buildings owned by the Company 
at Fort Nisqually. There was a stockade, probably three 
hundred by four hundred feet, enclosing some log buildings. 
About the year 1852 and 1853, when I first knew them, there 
were some log buildings; they were comfortable; probably five 
or six of them ; worth together at that time three thousand 
dollars. Outside the stockade they had a range of old stabling 
and sheepcots ; on Sequalitchew creek, I don't know what they 
were worth ; perhaps two or three hundred dollars. There 
was also a rough log warehouse on the Sound, at the mouth 
of the creek, that was worth probably two hundred and fifty 
dollars. Subsequently to this period the agent of the Com- 



176 

pany, Dr. Tolmie, built for himself a more comfortable house, 
worth probably fifteen hundred dollars. The Company also 
had some very common log cabins and sheepcots out at a 
place called Muck. They may have had other log cabins and 
sheepcots on the plains that I am not cognizant of. 

Int. 7. — Were there any saw-mills or water-power within 
the limits of the claim which were owned by the Company? 

Arts. — They had remnants of a saw-mill, I believe, but I 
never saw them at work at the mill. Within my knowledge, 
a mill has been put up at the same site, by other parties, and 
was running when I left there. This mill was on the Sequalit- 
chew creek. With my understanding of the extent of their 
claim, that was the only water-power embraced within it. 

Int. 8. — Are you acquainted with the land of Cowlitz Farms, 
so-called, which were claimed and occupied by the Company? 
If yea, please to describe its extent and character and value 
as fully as you can. 

Ans. — I know comparatively very little of that claim. I 
have been on it and through it fifty times probably, merely 
passing through on my way to Vancouver and elsewhere. The 
quality of the land is much superior to that of the Nisqually 
plains, and would probably be worth from eight to twelve dol- 
lars per acre. 

Int. 9. — How is this land situated with respect to a market? 

Ans. — There are two markets for the productions of the 
claim of the Cowlitz Farm ; one down the Cowlitz river and 
up the Columbia and Willamette to Portland. This naviga- 
tion down the Cowlitz river is particularly dangerous, from the 
many rapids in that river, and has been almost entirely aban- 
doned within the last few years. The other market is Olympia, 
the road to which, for full one-half [the] year, is almost im- 
passible for loaded wagons. The distance to these markets is 
about the same, fifty or sixty miles. 

Int. 10. — Does this difficulty in respect to a convenient 
market affect the value of this land? If so, how. 

Ans. — Certainly it does, from the cost of getting produce 
to market. 



177 



Cross-Examination. 

Int. 1. — During the time you resided in Washington Terri- 
tory did you become a farmer on the Nisqually plains, or be- 
come acquainted with the prices of agricultural produce ? 

Ans.' — I did not become a farmer, but I had a general ac- 
quaintance with the price of produce. I kept a store at 
Olympia for a short time, which gave me a general acquaint- 
ance of the prices. 

Int. 2. — Were you not, while at Steilacoom, chiefly employed 
in the Quartermaster's Department there, and connected 
with the military authorities ? 

Ans.- — Yes, sir, for about half the time. 

Int. 3. — You say you were acquainted with prices; did not 
the price of agricultural produce bear a high relative value 
to the cost of production ? 

Ans. — I should say, rather, yes. I could give the prices 
which I gave for articles, and which I sold them for. I don't 
know much of the cost of production, as I lived in town, and 
my attention was not called to it. 

Int. 4. — Have you, in estimating the value of this land, 
given any attention to its rental or production, to the amount 
or number of stock a given number of acres would support, 
or to the price paid per head for pasturage of stock ? 

Ans. — Yes 1 , I have, to a certain extent; I should judge it 
not worth much as grazing land, from the general appearance 
of the land itself, and from the circumstance of the Puget's 
Sound Agricultural Company moving their stock to Victoria, 
because whatever grazing qualities it may have originally 
possessed had been worn out, as I understood. 

Int. 5. — Then you would say that the value you put on the 
grazing land, from its appearance, is derived from the fact 
that the moving of the Company's stock to Victoria was from 
the worn-out condition of the land, and that these worn-out 
pasture lands were only worth fifty cents per acre ? 

, Ans.— I say that that land, that is, nine-tenths of it, is 
worth fifty cents per acre, as I saw it last, in 1863. 
13 P 



178 

Int. 6. — Is your value put on this land placed upon it at 
the time you have last mentioned? 

Ans. — It is the result of my experience, observation, and 
assertion for ten years prior to 1863. 

Int. 7. — Is this opinion, your carefully conceived and studied 
opinion, often asserted by you, formed soon after you first 
saw the land, and continued to the present day ? 

Ans. — Generally, it is. 

Int. 8. — Do I understand you to say that the land, in your 
opinion, was worth fifty cents an acre, in the year 1852, and 
the same price in 1863? 

Ans. — What I meant to state is the result of my experience 
there for ten years; what my close observation, for a person 
who is not a practical farmer, could give it. It was some- 
thing I took a great deal of interest in, and got my informa- 
tion from every practicable source. 

Int. 9. — At what time, then, do you fix this price of fifty 
cents per acre ; in 1852 or 1863, or at some intermediate time ? 

Ans. — The price that I thought the nine-tenths of that claim 
was worth, fifty cents per acre, may more probably be fixed 
from the years 1855 to 1857 generally, as I resided there in 
that period of years. 

Int. 10. — Was there not much land there that, in your 
opinion, was worth more than fifty cents per acre ? 

Ans. — Yes, there was. As I previously stated, in my estima- 
tion, about one-tenth was worth more than fifty cents per 
acre. 

Int. 11. — Is this statement you have made of one-tenth of 
good land, in your opinion, all the good land there was in this 
one hundred and sixty thousand acres ; might there not have 
been more? 

Ans. — I never understood the claim to equal anything like 
one hundred and sixty thousand acres. From Mr. Chapman's 
survey of it, some ten or fifteen years ago I think, I was given 
to understand that the claim was to embrace some seventy-five 
to eighty thousand acres, and my estimate of one-tenth was 
the aggregate of the best land that I could hear of on making 
inquiries from the settlers thereon. 



179 

Int. 12. — Suppose the survey shows one hundred and sixty 
thousand acres, would you change your estimate of the rela- 
tive proportion of good lands ? 

A?is. — No, sir ; I could not, from my acquaintance with what 
was generally called the Nisqually plafns. 

Int. 13. — You say you were connected with the Quarter- 
master's Department at Fort Steilacoom ; were not the bands 
of mules, horses, and cattle of that post, during the years 
1855, 1856, and 1857, pastured near the post, in the pastur- 
age season, on these lands ? 

Ans.— Yes, sir ; those that were not used for daily service. 
Some of them were pastured on the banks of the Puyallup 
river, which I did not understand was in the scope of this 
claim. 

Int. 14. — Was not the stock of the post, during the Indian 
war of those years, pastured very near the post, and were 
there not at times more animals than usual at the post? 

Ans. — Yes, sir. 

Int. 15. — Was not the country in a disturbed state in the 
summer of 1856, so much so as to prevent the body of the 
settlers in Pierce county from returning to and cultivating 
their abandoned claims ? 

Ans. — Yes, sir, in their opinion. 

Int. 16. — Where was the warehouse of the Company and 
the old saw-mill situated, and how far apart ? 

Ans.— On the landing on Puget's Sound; I don't remem- 
ber, at this moment, precisely their relative positions, though 
I know they are far apart. 

Int. 17. — Is there not a road leading through the woods 
from the Company's fort to the Sound, at or near the ware- 
house? 

Ans. — Yes, sir. 

Int. 18. — Do you mean to be understood is saying that the 
claim of the Company was bounded by the woods surrounding 
the prairie, and did not include any of the woodland, nor that 
it did not, in any portion of it, run out to the shores of the 
Sound ? 

Ans. — It certainly did run out to the shore of the Sound, 



180 

where the warehouse was. As I understood, the claim of the 
Company on the north and south, on the Puyallup and Nis- 
qually — I mean the northerly and southerly boundaries of the 
claim running with the rivers Nisqually and Puyallup — did 
not include the Nisqifklly and Puyallup woods, but skirted 
them, including points of timber that made in. This is my 
impression, derived from conversations with Br. Tolmie, Mr. 
Chapman, and others. 

Int. 19. — Might not your impression, that the town site of 
Steilacoom was not included in the claim, have been as prob- 
ably derived from what you were told by Chapman as from 
Dr. Tolmie? 

Ans. — No, sir. 

Int. 20. — At what time and place was this statement made 
to you by Dr. Tolmie, and what else did he say at the same 
time and in the same conversation ? 

Ans. — I cannot fix the time positively, as I, had repeated 
conversations with Dr. Tolmie upon this and kindred subjects 
in connection with the claim ; it was not long, however, after 
the establishment of the town of Steilacoom. 

Int. 21. — If you cannot fix the time or tell what he said at 
any one time, can you tell whether it was in reply to a ques- 
tion by you, or whether it was an assertion on his own part ? 

Ans. — It was in reply to a question by me ; such is my im- 
pression. 

Int. 22. — Did the Doctor answer in words, or did he nod 
his head in acquiescence? 

Ans. — He answered that question very plainly and emphati- 
cally. 

Int. 23. — How near is the town of Steilacoom to the post 
and the buildings for which the military authorities Avere then 
paying rent to the Company ? 

Ans. — I think we used to call it one and a half miles. 

Int. 24. — In what year, or about what year, was this state- 
ment made to you by Dr. Tolmie? 

Ans. — I don't know the exact year, but think it was in 
1851 or 1852. 

Int. 25. — You were deeply interested in this question, as 



181 

you state, and have heard statements from so many people, 
and asked so many questions ; do you feel certain, after the 
lapse of fourteen or fifteen years, that you can fix any par- 
ticular statement, or the person by whom it was made? 

Ans. — With regard to that particular answer of Dr. Tolmie 
I feel very certain. 

Int. 26. — May not your memory now be dependent on the 
numerous times you have repeated this question to others? 

Ans. — I am very confident I am correct in my recollection ; 
I am as certain of it as I am of anything. 

Int. 27. — Who was present at the time you put this question 
to Dr. Tolmie beside yourself and him? 

Ans. — I think no one ; I have no recollection of any one 
being present. 

Int. 28. — Was it at his own house, or at the military post, or 
where was it ? 

Ans. — We were riding together on horseback on the plain ; 
I think we were going to his house ; I cannot positively state 
the precise place or the date of it. 

Int. 29. — Who was with you at the time you looked at the 
oak trees ? 

A?is. — Michael T. Simmons ; there was another party > I 
think, whom I do not now recollect. 

Int. 30. — Is Michael T. Simmons a man of good repute, 
worthy of belief, of good judgment in matters of agriculture 
and milling, and one whose opinion on such matters would be 
of value ? 

Ans. — Simmons is a very clever man, natural judgment, 
strong sense, but violent prejudices. I would take his opin- 
ion on any ordinary subject in which his feelings did not come 
into operation. 

Int. 31. — Whose opinion and knowledge was taken about 
the oak trees ; yours, or that of Mr. M. T. Simmons ? 

Ans. — Mr. Simmons, at that time. 

Int. 32. — Was not the saw-mill of M. T. Simmons some 
twenty-five miles from these oaks ? 
Ans. — -Yes, sir, about that distance. 



182 

Int. 33. — Was not hauling by teams at that time very ex- 
pensive in that section of the country? 

Ans. — It was expensive. 

Int. 34. — Did not the settlers on the Nisqually Plains, 
during the Indian waf, leave their claims, and was not the 
country much injured in consequence ? 

Ans. — The settlers generally left their claims and came 
into the villages. 

H. A. GOLDSBOROUGH. 

Washington City, D. C. June 20, 1866. 



District of Columbia, 1 

/* ss 
Count]/ of Washington, j 

I, Nicholas Callan, a notary public in and for the county 
and district aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing 
depositions hereunto annexed of John B. Chapman, D. B. 
McKibbin, Arthur A. Denny, George Suckley, and Hugh A. 
Goldsborough, witnesses produced by and on behalf of the 
United States, in the matter of the claims of the Puget's 
Sound Agricultural Company against the same, now pending 
before the British and American Joint Commission for the 
adjustment of the same, were taken before, me at the office of 
said Commission, No. 355 H street north, in the city of 
Washington, District of Columbia, and reduced to writing, 
under my direction, by Nicholas Callan, Jr., a person agreed 
upon by Eben F. Stone, Esq., attorney for the United States, 
and Edward Lander, Esq., attorney for said Company, be- 
ginning on the 5th day of April, A. D. 1866, and terminating 
on the 26th day of June, A. D. 1866, according to the several 
dates appended to the said depositions, when they were signed 
respectively. 

I further certify that to each of said witnesses, before his 
examination, I administered the following oath : 

" You swear that the evidence you shall give in the matter 
of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company against the 
United States of America shall be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God." 



183 

That after the same were reduced to writing, the deposition 
of each witness was carefully read to and then signed by him. 
I further certify that Eben E. Stone, Esq., and Edward 
Lander, Esq., were personally present during the examina- 
tion and cross-examination of all said witnesses and the read- 
ing and signing of their depositions. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and 
[l. s.] official seal, this twenty-sixth day of June, A. 
D. 1866. 

N. Callan, 
Notary Public. 



BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION 



ON THE 



HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICUL- 
TURAL COMPANIES' CLAIMS. 



In the matter of the Claim of the PugeVs Sound Agricultural 
Company against the United States. 

The deposition of Horace R. Wirtz, brevet lieutenant colonel 
and surgeon in the United States Army, taken by agree- 
ment between Edward Lander, counsel for the Puget's 
Sound Agricultural Company, and E. F. Stone, of coun- 
sel for the United States. The oath was administered by 
United States Commissioner Osborn. 

Testimony of Horace R. Wirtz. 

Int. 1. — What is your name, place of residence, and occu- 
pation ? 

Ans. — Horace R. Wirtz ; surgeon in the United States 
Army ; place of residence, Fort Hamilton. 

Int. 2. — Have you ever resided in Washington Territory? 
If yea, when, and where, and for how long a period? 

Ans — I was stationed in Washington Territory for two or 
three years, during the years 1859, 1860, and 1861. 

Int. 3. — Have you any knowledge of that tract of land 
bordering on Puget's Sound and lying between the Nisqually 
and Puyallup rivers, and extending easterly towards the foot- 
hills of the Cascade Range, called the Nisqually Plains, and 
claimed by the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company? If 
yea, please to describe the same, giving the character and ex- 
tent of that part, if any, which is open and prairie land ; the 
character and extent of that part, if any, which is woodland 



185 

or swamp ; the character and extent of that part, if any, 
which is suitable for grazing; the character and extent of 
that part, if any, which is suitable for tillage; and any other 
fact or circumstance which, in your judgment, may enter into 
a full description of the land in question. 

Ans. — I was stationed for about two years at Fort Steila- 
coom, which I have always understood to be upon the land 
claimed by the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company. The 
character of the country in the neighborhood of the fort, and 
between there and Fort Nisqually, which is the Puget's Sound 
Agricultural Company's post, is an open prairie, interspersed 
here and there with low timber. The character of the soil is 
sandy, and generally barren; but sufficient for the purposes 
of pasturage and sheep-grazing, for which it has principally 
been used. There are certain points on the border of streams, 
in this tract of country, where the land is capable of cultiva- 
tion and where gardens have been made. I know of one 
piece of land that had been cultivated by the Puget's Sound 
Agricultural Company, and of two or three others that had 
been cultivated by persons who had settled there; but, as a 
general thing, the whole tract of country is a prairie, covered 
with sparse grass and sandy soil. There are several ponds 
or lakes in the country, but I know of no marshes; and the 
quantity of land that is fit for agricultural purposes is very 
small indeed. There is no timber of any size ; all the timber 
being generally stunted trees. 

Int. 4.— Have you any knowledge of the extent of land at 
this place which was enclosed and cultivated by the Puget's 
Sound Agricultural Company ? If yea, please to state what, 
in your judgment, was the quantity. 

Ans. — I have very little knowledge of the quantity of land 
that was cultivated. I know that a gentleman named Hug- 
gins, who was connected with the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
Company, had a farm near Fort Nisqually ; but I always re- 
garded it more in the light of a kitchen-garden than anything 
else. I really do not know the extent of land that was under 
cultivation by him; I absolutely don't know how much there 
was ; I never saw the place but once. 



186 

Int. 5. — State, if you know, what was the general condition 
of this tract of land claimed by the Company ; whether it 
was for the most part in a wild and natural state, or enclosed 
and cultivated. 

Ans. — I should describe it as a sandy prairie, covered with 
short grass. It was all in a wild natural state, except a small 
portion that was used for raising vegetables and such things, 
as far as I know. 

Int. 6. — Do you know, from experience or observation, the 
effect of cultivation upon the condition of the soil of these 
plains ? If yea, describe the same. 

Ans. — I have a general theoretical idea of what land might 
be capable of cultivation, and what could not be cultivated. 
The only land that is capable of cultivation in that region of 
country is that bordering on the bottom of streams, and the 
proportion of that land to the whole amount is very small 
compared with the whole amount of country. 

Int. 7. — Have you any knowledge of any cattle, or sheep, 
or horses, belonging to the Puget's Sound Agricultural Com- 
pany, which were pastured upon these plains while you were 
there ? 

Ans. — I lived there about two years, and I never saw my- 
self, and I used to ride about the country — I never saw any 
cattle, or sheep, or horses, whatever, on any of these plains ; 
but I know there must have been sheep on the plains, because 
Dr. Tolmie, chief factor and agent of the Puget's Sound Agri- 
cultural Company, used to send me, when the sheep were cut, 
every spring, two or three gallons of what are called lambs- 
fries; and they must have had sheep, or they could not have 
had them ; I imagined that there must have been a considerable 
number of sheep raised there, though I never saw any. 

lit. 8. — Have you any knowledge of the fort and build- 
ings and improvements belonging to the Puget's Sound Agri- 
cultural Company within the limits of the tract described? If 
yea, please to describe the same, giving their condition, and 
the character of their construction, as fully as you can, at the 
time you were there ? 

Ans. — I visited, a number of times, Dr. Tolmie, at what is 



187 

called Fort Nisqually. Fort Nisqually is a stockade, enclos- 
ing, I should think, about an acre of land ; I cannot positively 
say how much, but I should think about an acre ; perhaps 
more. Inside of this there was one very good frame house, in 
which Dr. Tolmie and his family resided, and two or three 
rows of dilapidated log huts. Inside of this enclosure there 
was a small store, about fifteen or twenty feet square, which 
was used for trading purposes with the Indians, and to some 
extent with the whites. This stockade was enclosed; but 
before I left the country most of the pickets were taken down 
and had not been replaced. The whole fort, as it is called, 
with the exception of the building in which Dr. Tolmie lived, 
was very old and dilapidated. What we used to call a fort, 
which I have just described, is the only place I know of per- 
sonally that belonged to the Puget's Sound Agricultural Com- 
pany — this enclosure. By that, I mean the only place where 
there were any buildings. I might state that there was a 
house where Mr. Huggins resided, which I never visited but 
once, and about which I don't recollect the extent, but it cer- 
tainly was not large, not far from the fort. As far as I recol- 
lect, it was a log house, but I am not certain of that. I never 
was there but once, and that was at night. 

Int. 9. — Have you ever observed upon these plains any oak 
trees ? If yea, please to describe them, stating their num- 
bers, and whether they were or were not suitable for timber. 

Ans. — I never saw myself any oak trees, except stunted 
oak. They may have been there ; I don't know ; but I never 
saw myself any oak trees except stunted ones — none that I 
think would appear of any value for any purpose ; I never 
saw any over twenty feet high at any rate. 

Int. 10. — Was it your habit to ride about frequently over 
different portions of this tract, and did you take particular 
observation of its general condition and character ? 

Ans. — Yes ; I have ridden over the whole of it, how often, I 
cannot say ; but at different times I have certainly ridden over 
the greater portion of this tract. I never took particular obser- 
vation of it, and I simply now state what my impressions are, 
though I have never looked at the country with any special 



188 

view of finding out any particulars things, either in regard to 
the productions of the country or timber, but I simply record 
my impressions now to this date. 

Cross-Examined. 

Int. 1. — What time were you at Nisqually, at Fort Steila- 
coom ? 

Ans. — I don't recollect any one time, but I can state that 
during the year 1859 I was there ; I don't recollect now with- 
out referring to my notes. 

Int. 2. — Where were you stationed during the remainder of 
the time you spent about Puget's Sound? 

Ans. — I was stationed — I suppose it is called part of Puget's 
Sound — at Simiamhoo, on the 49th parallel ; but in 1859 I 
was at Steilacoom, and I stayed there about two years > I can- 
not give you the exact date. 

Int. 3. — Do you not know that a considerable amount of 
agricultural produce was raised upon these plains that you 
speak of, and that agricultural productions and cattle and 
horses were shipped from Steilacoom for sale at other points ? 

Ans. — I never heard of anything of the kind being shipped 
from Steilacoom; that is, in my experience, I never heard of 
anything of the kind ; indeed, I never heard of anything being 
shipped from there except lumber. 

Int. 4. — Is there not a flouring-mill near Fort Steilacoom, 
on this claim of the Puget's Sound Company ? 

Ans. — Yes, sir ; there is one close by the fort, owned by 
a Mr. Bird, I think. Mr. Bird had a flour-mill. He is the 
only one I know of. 

Int. 5. — Do you not recollect the flouring-mill also of Mr. 
Chambers? 

Ans. — Yes, sir; I think Mr. Chambers did have a small 
mill. Yes, sir; Mr. Chambers and Mr. Bird both had mills. 

Int. 6. — Are there not on these plains a number of settlers, 
from one hundred to one hundred and fifty, who have taken 
claims, opened farms, and are engaged in agricultural pur- 
suits ? 



189 

Ans. — Well, I can state from my personal knowledge that 
I know of eight or ten; I don't know of any more; I could 
not positively call to mind any more who have opened farms, 
who have taken claims — or whatever you call them — farms on 
these plains ; and with the exception of Judge Chambers, I 
don't know any one who is not living a miserable existence, 
that is, I don't know any one that is making more than what he 
can possibly live on. That is my own experience. I cannot 
call to mind any one else but Judge Chambers, and he is doing 
very well ; but all the rest are just living from hand to mouth. 
What they raise I don't know, but it certainly cannot be 
much. 

Int. 7. — Do you think you have ridden over these plains 
and visited the house of every settler on them, or nearly all 
the settlers on them ? 

Ans. — No, I don't think I have ; but I have travelled about 
a good deal, and all I can call to mind — I cannot in fact call 
to mind more than eight or ten settlers, eight or ten farms. 

Int. 8. — Have not your rides generally been confined to the 
road leading from the fort towards Fort Nisqually and Olym- 
pia, and the road leading up towards Puyallup ? 

Aiis. — No, they have not ; I have been forced to go, pro- 
fessionally, to a good many out of the way places, away from 
roads; but I must confess that there are other persons in the 
country, perhaps, who have ridden a great deal more than I 
have ; but I have gone pretty much over the whole of this 
tract of country. 

Int. 9. — Have your professional visits been confined to these 
eight or ten farmers' houses that you have mentioned, or have 
you visited any more of the settlers' houses than those you 
have spoken of? 

Ans. — The farms I have spoken of were places that I passed 
in going to see other people, because the people I went to see 
generally, it could hardly be said that they had farms ; they 
were very poor. The reason of that is, that I never practiced 
with a view of emolument. I never went to see anybody if 
he had any money, because I wished to go for charity when I 
did go. 



190 

Int. 10. — Was there a physician of the name of Ridgely at 
practice in Steilacoom when you were at the fort ? 
Ans. — Yes, sir ; Dr. John Ridgely. 

Int. 11. — Do you know where the grain that was supplied 
to the animals at the post at Steilacoom was raised ? 

Ans. — -My impression is, I have always thought they brought 
it from San Francisco ; that is my impression. The flour, or 
a portion of it, I know, was supplied by Mr. Bird and Judge 
Chambers ; but I don't think all of it was. 

Int. 12. — Did you pay such attention to the agricultural 
products of those plains as to say with any exactness what 
amount of produce was raised upon them, and what quantity 
of cattle were pastured or fed on them ? 

Ans. — No, I never did ; I never thought it amounted to 
anything ; that is my impression. 

Int. 13. — Was not your attention, as a general thing, given 
to your profession, and to the study of it, and not diverted to 
determining points as to the fertility of lands, their produc- 
tiveness, the population residing upon them, or anything of 
that nature ? 

Ans. — Well, I only studied these things in so far as they 
related to my profession, and so far as any intelligent man 
would take an interest in such things who was not specially 
an agriculturist. 

Int. 14. — Did you ever visit the Muck Prairie ? 
Ans. — Yes, sir ; I have. 

Int. 15. — Were there not some farmers upon that that were 
making money ? 

Ans. — If I am right with regard to the Muck Prairie, I 
went there twice to see a man named Wren ; I think it was 
what they called the Muck Prairie ; and it was said he lived 
by stealing Hudson's Bay cattle, and Dr. Tolmie told me so. 
With regard to his farm, I don't recollect much about it. He 
lived in a little old log house. That is all I recollect about 
that part of the country. 

Int. 16. — What is your opinion of the health of that climate, 
and its advantages for settlers in a sanitary point of view ? 
Ans. — Well, I consider it a very fine climate on account of 



191 

the temperature being so equable, there being no very great 
range of the thermometer between winter and summer, and 
I consider it, as far as climate is concerned, as an excellent 
country for people to settle in. 

Int. 17. — Have you any experience as an agriculturist or 
farmer ? 

Ans. — Yery little. 

Int. 18. — Are you acquainted with the properties of soils ? 
" Ans. — I am only acquainted with the properties of soils as 
a theoretical and practical chemist, and as far as chemistry 
bears on agriculture, I am acquainted with it. 

Int. 19. — Did you ever make any examination of the soil of 
these plains, so as to decide upon the question whether they 
were fertile or not ? 

Ans. — I never did. 

Int. 20. — Your impression then of the soil and of the land 
is derived by merely looking on it with your eyes when riding 
on horseback ? 

Ans. — Simply by riding over sandy prairies, I could see it 
was sand and gravel ; that was all. 

Int. 21. — Are not these prairies, especially in the spring of 
the year, covered with a fine growth of grass, affording pas- 
turage to cattle and sheep ? 

Avis.— Well, there is a peculiar kind of weed that covers 
most of them, which, I understood from farmers, wasJnjurious 
to agriculture, and which had probably been brought there 
and diffused by the sheep. What that weed is called I don't 
recollect now — -it is called sorrel. There is almost as much 
sorrel in some places as there is grass, and it is stated to be 
diffused there by the sheep. I suppose they bring it there in 
their wool ; but I know that it is said by farmers there to be 
a great draw-back to agriculture on these plains. 

Int. 22. — Do you wish to be understood as saying that these 
plains produce sorrel alone, and that they are not covered in 
the spring of the year with grass ? 

Ans. — That is what I have understood. In some places 
there is as much sorrel as there is grass. I know I have 
heard that spoken of by the principal men there. 



192 

Int. 23. — Do you mean to say you know this to be the fact 
there, or that you heard it ? 

Ans. — I have had it pointed out to me, and I have also 
heard it spoken of frequently, and I have asked how it got 
there, and they said it was probably brought in the wool of 
the sheep, as I have said before. 

Int. 24. — Have you noticed the soil yourself in more than 
a few instances, and is not what you have stated in reference 
to it derived chiefly from the information of others ? 

Ans. — As I have been riding out, I frequently had my 
attention called to it by persons who were with me ; but I will 
say that I have heard it so much spoken of, that perhaps the 
universal opinion of the people that I have conversed with has 
had some influence on my opinion ; universal statement among 
farmers. 

Int. 25. — Are you prepared to say that these plains do not 
afford a good natural and nutritious grass for the pasturage 
of sheep and cattle ? 

Ans. — Oh, yes ; I think the plains furnished a good pas- 
turage for sheep and cattle. 

Int. 26. — Are you prepared to say that there is not upon 
these plains a good deal of agricultural land susceptible of 
cultivation, as also many pieces of enclosed arable land, which 
have escaped your notice and observation? 

Ans. — There may have been pieces of land that escaped my 
observatftn ; but I state the general result of my observations, 
that on the borders of streams the land is, for a certain distance 
on each side, fertile ; but that the country, if I were to give a 
general description of it, would be described by saying that 
it is a prairie, of a sandy quality, and covered with grass of 
different qualities, very good in some places, and not so good 
in others. If I were going through the country, I should de- 
scribe it as a prairie, with here and there little spots that 
could be cultivated. That is my impression I brought away 
from that country. H. R. Wirtz, 

Surgeon and Brevt Lt. Col. U. S, A. 

Sworn to before me this 13th day of July, A. D. 1866. 

John A. Osborn, 

U. S. Commissioner. 



193 

Southern District of New York, ) 
City of New York. j 

I, John A. Osborn, United States Commissioner, do hereby 
certify that the foregoing deposition of Horace R. Wirtz, a 
witness produced by and on behalf of the United States, in 
the matter of the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company 
against the same, now pending before the British and Ameri- 
can Joint Commission, for the final settlement thereof, was 
taken before me, at my office in the city of New York, and 
reduced to writing, under my direction, on the 13th day of 
July, 1866. 

I further certify that, before his examination, I adminis- 
tered to said witness the following oath : 

" You swear that the evidence you shall give in the matter 
of the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company against the 
United States of America shall be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God." 

That after the same was reduced to writing, the deposition 
of said witness was carefully read to, and then signed by 
him. 

I further certify that Eben F. Stone, Esq., attorney for the 
United States, and Edward Lander, Esq., attorney for the 
Hudson's Bay Company, were personally present during the 
examination and cross-examination of said witness. 

And I do further certify that I am not of counsel nor 
attorney for either of the parties in the said deposition and 
caption named, nor in any way interested in the event of the 
cause named in said caption. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal 
[l. s.] this 30th day of July, A. D. 1866. 

John A. Osborn, 
U. S. Commr South' n Dirt, of 1ST. Y. 



14 P 



BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION 



ON THE 



HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICUL- 
TURAL COMPANIES' CLAIMS. 



In the matter of the Claim of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
Company against the United States. 

Deposition of Silas Casey, taken before Thomas S. Blackman, 
a United States Commissioner for the eastern district of 
Michigan, by consent of parties, in the matter of the claim 
of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company against the 
United States, before the British and American Joint 
Commission on the Hudson's Bay and Puget's Sound 
Agricultural Companies' claims; said deposition being 
taken on the part of the United States to be used and 
read upon the hearing of said matter, subject only to all 
legal objections as to the relevancy and competency of 
the same. Wm. P. Wells, Esq., appears on behalf of the 
United States, for whom said deposition is taken, and 
Edward Lander, Esq., for said Puget's Sound Agricul- 
tural Company, and thereupon the said — 

Silas Casey, being duly sworn, deposes, and says : 

Int. 1. — Please give your name, residence, and present 

occupation. 

Ans. — My name is Silas Casey; I reside at Fort Wayne, 

near Detroit, Michigan; I am a Brevet Major General in the 

United States Army. 

Int. 2. — Have you ever resided in Washington Territory ? 
Ans. — Yes ; I resided there for a period of about four 

years in all. I was there twice. I went there in 1855, and 

left finally in 1861 ; I had left once in the interval. 



195 

Int. 3. — About how long were you absent at the interval 
you mention ? 

Ans. — About one year, I think. I left there on January 
12, 1858, and returned there in the following winter. 

Int. 4. — At what place or places did you reside, and what 
places did you visit ? 

Ans.— I resided at Fort Steilacoom. I was stationed there 
in command of the United States troops, and a part of the 
time in command of the District of Puget's Sound. I was off 
on temporary duty to other places. 

Int. 5. — Did you become acquainted with the tract of land 
at Nisqually Plains, so called, in Washington Territory, which 
is claimed by the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company ? 

Ans. — I have been at Fort Nisqually, and have crossed the 
plains several times, and am acquainted with the laud which 
was known to be claimed by that Company. I have always 
understood that the Company claimed the country between 
Nisqually and Puyallup. 

Int. 6. — Please describe the said tract. 

Ans. — As I understand, the tract is bounded south by the 
Nisqually, north by the Puyallup, east by the foot of the 
Cascade Range of Mountains, and west by Puget's Sound. I 
state this merely from my belief and from general reputation 
as to the boundaries of the country. 

Int. 7. — Are you able to estimate the number of square 
miles contained in the tract? 

Ans. — I should think there were four or five hundred square 
miles ; but I do not know. This is a rough estimate that I 
make from observation. 

Int. 8. — About what portion of the tract is open or prairie 
land ? 

Ans. — So far as my observation extended, I should judge 
that three-quarters of it at least was prairie land, though I 
have never followed up the rivers to their source. 

Int. 9. — About what portion is woodland and swamp ? 

Ans. — I should think one-fourth. It is a very high country, 
and very little of it is swamp. It is rather a peculiar coun- 
try. There are places where you will find a little pond and 



196 

some swamp about it. At these places there are always 
houses, because the land is very rich. 

Int. 10. — What extent of the tract is suitable for tillage, 
and what for grazing or pasturing? 

Ans. — A good deal of the open country, between Forts Steil- 
acoom and Nisqually, the part which I am best acquainted 
with, is gravelly plains ; grass very scarce, and a good deal of 
it has been so eaten by the sheep that it principally grows sor- 
rel. There are parts of those plains where there is very good 
grazing and pasturing land. I should not think more than 
one-third of the open country is good grazing and pasturing 
land. There is a good deal of the land that will bear a pretty 
good crop of wheat in a wet season. It is what they call 
"leachy land," and soon wears out. It is not such land as 
our Western farmers would look at at all; farmers, I mean, 
who are used to good lands. To give you an idea of the coun- 
try, I would state that the roads are always good and hard in 
the open country. When I was there, perhaps one nine-hun- 
dredth part of the open country was under cultivation. The 
population was very scarce. The river part of the country was 
more thickly settled than the balance. If the country were 
thickly settled, a great part of it would be cultivated ; but our 
people would not consider more than one-third of the whole 
tract fit for cultivation. 

Int. 11. — At the time of your residence, what crops were 
raised on the cultivated lands, and how much per acre? 

Ans. — The principal crops raised while I was there, so far 
as I know, were oats and wheat — corn would not grow on ac- 
count of the weather; it was too cold nights. I think, in the 
open country, the yield of wheat would be fifteen or twenty 
bushels to the acre, and in spots it would be more ; I mean on 
the lands that were cultivated. 

Int. 12. — What was the effect of cultivation on the condi- 
tion of the soil? 

Ans. — The effect was a deterioration of the soil ; it was the 
general reputation there that it was leachy ground, and would 
not hold manure or water, and that it therefore required a 
good deal of water. 



197 

Int. 13. — Are you able to give an estimate of the money 
value of the different portions of the tract which you have 
described? 

Ans. — If you estimate the value of land by what it will 
bring in market, I should say that the whole tract which they 
claim would not bring a dollar an acre, and I will give one 
reason : The Government had surveyed and sold land laying 
between these two rivers claimed by this Company, and the 
best lands so surveyed did not go off at the Government price, 
one dollar and a quarter an acre. This is what others have 
told me, and not what I know of my own knowledge. 

(Counsel for the Company objects to the statement of the 
witness made upon information derived from others.) 

Int. 14. — Will you please describe the farms, buildings, 
forts, and improvements of any kind which were claimed and 
occupied by the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company upon 
their land claim at Nisqually Plains, stating the construction 
of the buildings and the general condition of the improve- 
ments at the time of your residence. 

Ans. — The principal buildings at Nisqually Plains were 
contained in Fort Nisqually and its neighborhood. So far as 
my knowledge extends, and I have been there a number of 
times, they were all log buildings. I was in but two of them. 
One was occupied by Dr. Tolmie, and was the best building 
there, I suppose ; and the other was a store-house. The Doc- 
tor's building was a very fair building, and was ceiled inside, 
I think. The store-house was a very common building. The 
other buildings which I noticed were block-houses, four in 
number, and were very poorly constructed. There was a kind 
of picket around the fort. There were thirty to forty build- 
ings there in all ; some of them were stores and some dwelling- 
houses. Dr. Tolmie generally had thirty to forty Indians 
around him and some white people. I cannot give any esti- 
mate of the number of the people at the fort. I suppose 
there were forty or fifty acres of land there under fence, as 
near as I can estimate ; there may have been a great deal 
more. This place that I have been speaking of was called 
the Main Post. There were other places about there, but I 



198 

never visited any of them except this Main Post and Steila- 
lacoom. Some of the improvements were in good order, and 
a part of them dilapidated. 

Int. 15. — Have you any knowledge of the value of the im- 
provements at Nisqually Plains, described in your answer to 
the previous question, including the cultivated lands, build- 
ings, and other improvements ? 

Ans. — If they had been put up at auction with Fort Nis- 
qually and the cultivated lands about it, I do not think they 
would have brought more than twelve thousand dollars. I 
include in this the fort and buildings, and the six hundred 
and forty acres immediately about the fort. They might have 
been worth more than this, but I do not think they would have 
brought more at auction. 

Int. 16. — Were any cattle, horses, or sheep owned by this 
Agricultural Company pastured upon the plains at Nisqually? 
If so, state the number of each kind as far as you are able ? 

Ans. — I have seen sheep, cattle, and horses in the neigh- 
borhood of those plains, and which belonged, I suppose, to that 
Company, and I judge that the Company did own them, as I 
know that their agent, Dr. Tolmie, was a Government con- 
tractor, and contracted in behalf of the Company, as I under- 
stood, to supply the military post at Fort Steilacoom. I do 
not know how many cattle, sheep, and horses the Company 
had, and cannot give their value or any estimate of their value. 
My knowledge is too vague for that. 

Int. 17. — Have you any knowledge of the land and farm, 
and improvements at Cowlitz river? 

Ans. — I have not. 

Int. 18. — Can you state any other matter or thing in your 
judgment affecting the claim of this Company against the 
United States ? 

Ans. — When I was stationed there the United States did 
not admit that the Company owned all the property there which 
it claimed to own. There was a claim owned by Judge Cham- 
bers with a mill on it near the fort. The town of Steilacoom 
was laid out within a mile of the fort, and within the territory 
claimed by the Company, and the citizens there bought and 



199 

sold lots, and did not acknowledge the ownership of the Com- 
pany. I suppose there were at most two hundred people in 
this town of Steilacoom while I was there. My impression is 
that the people there claimed title through the United States 
bj what were called " Donation claims." 

Silas Casey. 

The foregoing direct examination having been taken on 
Saturday, September 29, 1866, the hearing for the further 
examination of said witness is adjourned by consent of parties 
until Monday, October 1, 1866, at 10 o'clock a. m. 

Thomas S. Blackman, 

Z7. jS. Commissioner. 



October 1, 1866, 10 o'clock a. m. 

The same counsel appear for the parties as before, and 
thereupon the said — 
Silas Case?/, being now further examined, deposes and says: 

I wish to add a little to my testimony of Saturday last. I 
wish now further to state that there were a number of claim- 
ants in addition to Judge Chambers and those mentioned as 
occupying lots in Steilacoom. In fact, the whole of the claim 
of the Company which was within my knowledge was dotted 
over with claimants who did not acknowledge the rights of. 
the Company. I recollect the names of a number of them. 
Two or three persons named Bird, who occupied a mill and 
the grounds connected with it; two persons named Keach ; a 
man named Patterson, another named Follett, and others 
named Smith and Dowling, and there were several others. 
These persons whom I have named, held under the United 
States either by donation or otherwise. The claim of the 
Company was the subject of discussion very frequently. 

With regard to the claim at Fort Nisqually, I wish to add 
that I considered it one of the best locations on the Com- 
pany's whole claim. The fact that a fine spring of water 
flowed by the fort, well adapted to milling purposes, and on 



200 

which, I think, there was a mill belonging, I suppose, to the 
Company, and the fact that this spot was connected with the 
waters of the Sound by a good landing and a good road, were 
sufficient causes, in my opinion, to enhance the value of this 
property of which I have spoken. 

Silas Casey. 

Being now cross-examined by Mr. Lander, the witness depose® 
and says : 

Int. 1. — You state that you have travelled across these 
plains ; please state in what directions you travelled, and by 
what roads. 

Arts. — I have been over a portion of them. I have been to- 
Puyallup river, which took me across Puyallup Plains. I 
have been to the Nisqually river via the Nisqually Fort,, 
which took me across the Nisqually Plains. I do not suppose 
I have ever been more than ten miles directly east towards 
the Cascade Mountains. 

Int. 2. — Is not the Company's fort at Nisqually about six 
miles from the military post at Steilacoom, and on the main 
road to Olympia; and does not that road run along the ex- 
treme western edge of the plains, and near to the woods, for 
the whole distance to the Nisqually river ? 

Ans. — The road from Steilacoom to Nisqually is nearer 
eight than six miles ; something over seven miles, I think. 
It is on the main road to Olympia, and it does, for a large 
part of the distance, run along the western edge of the plains. 

Int. 3. — Was not the road to Puyallup river a road also 
running along the western edge of the plains for a portion of 
the way, and the remainder through woods by a trail opened 
by your orders ? 

Ans. — I answer in the affirmative to the whole question. 

Int. 4. — How often have you been to the east on these 
plains, and by what roads? 

Ans. — I have been most frequently to the east on the road 
leading to the garden of the post, about six miles east of the 
fort. 

Int. 5. — Did you usually keep to the main road in making 



201 

these journeys, or did you ride off of the main roads for the 
purpose of examining the country? 

Ans. — I most frequently went on the main roads, but I have 
frequently left the main roads and ridden over the plains, and 
I generally notice a country pretty closely when I go over it. 

Int. 6. — Is not your knowledge of these plains the best on 
that part of them which lie near the woods and on the main 
road between Forts Steilacoom and Nisqually, and immediately 
around those places? 

Ans. — My knowledge of the portion which lay immediately 
on those roads is the best, but in my opinion I had a good 
knowledge of the country within ten miles of the fort, all 
around, though not so minute a knowledge as along the roads. 

Int. 7. — Can you, of your own personal knowledge, give the 
results of any farming or gardening on any particular piece 
of ground? 

Ans. — I can, with regard to the garden of about ten or fif- 
teen acres belonging to the post. It was very well adapted to 
potatoes, turnips, beets, and peas, and onions. It would not 
raise corn or tomatoes. A portion of this garden, when I first 
went there, was a sort of a marsh, where the wild ducks used 
to roost- I caused that to be drained into a pond, and then 
ploughed it and planted potatoes, and on that particular spot 
where the ducks roosted I never saw such potatoes. The per- 
son who dug the potatoes said he had dug potatoes in England, 
Scotland, and Ireland, and that he never had seen such pota- 
toes. I think they would have yielded seven to eight hundred 
bushels to the acre, and they were of an excellent qualtity 
and of very large size. 

Int. 8. — In giving your account of these plains over their 
whole extent, is not a portion of the testimony that you have 
given derived from what you have heard from others ? 

Ans. — Yes, sir ; the most of the testimony which I have given 
in regard to these plains, with the exception of those portions 
which I have myself been over, was derived from impressions 
produced upon my mind from the statements of others. 

Int. 9. — At the time you visited Fort Nisqually, had a new- 
framed house for the chief factor been erected ? 



202 

Ans. — When I visited Fort Nisqually the chief factor lived 
in a log house. I am. strongly of the impression that it was a 
log house. 

Int. 10. — Do you feel certain that the saw-mill or mill on the 
Company's land, that you speak of, on the stream running by 
the fort, was not built by and the property of American set- 
tlers ? 

Ans. — If the building which I suppose is meant is the one, 
I do not think it did belong to American settlers. There may 
have been no mill there. There was a dam there and a build- 
ing which I took for a mill. I have seen them washing sheep 
there. 

Int. 11. — In your examination in chief, you have stated that 
one-third of the open country is good grazing and pasturing 
lind; do you mean to be understood that only one-third of it 
is suitable for pasturage? 

Ans. — The difficulty in answering that question arises from 
the use of the word "suitable." I will explain what I mean 
by that; I think not more than one-third of it is good pastur- 
ing land. 

Int. 12. — You have spoken of the ground being "leachy;" 
is that statement from your own knowledge or from informa- 
tion derived from others? 

Ans. — With regard to its being "leachy," I have spoken 
from my own knowledge; in regard to water and in regard to 
manure, from information derived from others. 

Int. 13. — Was this observation of yours about the ground 
being leachy made at Steilacoom or elsewhere? 

Ans. — Mostly at and around Steilacoom, but somewhat in 
other localities. 

Int. 14. — When you speak of the Government of the United 
States not acknowledging the claim of the Company, do you 
yourself know any facts which caused you to form that opinion? 

Ans. — I know there were military reservations at Steilacoom 
and other places, plots of which were sent to Washington, and 
I supposed the reservations and plots were made by order of 
the Government. 

Silas Casey. 



203 

Eastern District of Michigan, ss. 

I, Thomas S. B'ackman, one of the United States Commis- 
sioners for said district, do hereby certify that the foregoing 
deposition of Silas Casey was taken before me, at my office 
in the city of detroit, in said district, commencing on Satur- 
day, September 29, 1866, and concluding on Monday, Octo- 
ber 1, 1866, in the matter in which said deposition is entitled 
in its caption, and in behalf of the United States. That I 
was attended at said examination by William P. Wells, Esq. 
in behalf of the United States, and by Edward Lander, Esq., 
in behalf of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company; that 
said witness, Silas Casey, was first duly sworn by me "to tes- 
tify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,"yn 
said matter, and was then orally examined in chief and cross- 
examined, and that the whole of his deposition was reduced 
to writing by me in his presence, and was then carefully read 
over by me to said witness, and was then subscribed by him in 
my presence ; that said examination was commenced on Sat- 
urday, the 29th day of September, 1866, and not having been 
concluded on that day, the examination was adjourned by me, 
by consent of the counsel who appeared before me at said ex- 
amination, until Monday, the first day of October, 1866., at 
10 o'clock in the forenoon, at which last-mentioned time said 
examination was proceeded with and concluded. 

That my fees for taking said deposition are twenty-five 
dollars. 

In witness whereof I have hereto set my hand this 
Tl s 1 
L ' ' J second day of October, A. D. 1866, at Detroit. 

Thomas S. Blackman, 
U. S. Commissioner for the Eastern District of Michigan, 



BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION 



HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICUL- 
TURAL COMPANIES' CLAIM. 



In the matter of the Claim of the JPugefs Sound Agricultural 
Company against the United States of America. 

To any civil magistrate at the Fort Jefferson, Dry Tortugas, 
competent to administer oaths, or in his absence, to any 
* officer thereof authorized by the revised regulations for 
the Army to take depositions: 

Know ye, that in confidence of your prudence and fidelity, 
you have been appointed, and by these presents, you, or any 
one of you, is invested with full power and authority to exam- 
ine Brevet Lieutenant Colonel Bennett H. Hill, on his corporal 
oath, as a witness in the above entitled cause, upon the inter- 
rogations annexed to this Commission on the part of the Uni- 
ted States, and the cross-interrogatories thereto annexed by 
the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company. 

Therefore, you are hereby required that you, or either of you, 
at certain days and places to be appointed by you for that pur- 
pose, do cause the said Brevet Lieutenant Colonel Bennett H. 
Hill to come before you, and then and there examine him on 
oath on said interrogatories and cross-interrogatories, and re- 
duce the same to writing in conformity with instructions hereto 
annexed; and when the said deposition shall have been com- 
pleted, you will return -the same annexed to this writ, closed 
up under your seal, and addressed by mail to George Gibbs, 
Esq., Clerk of said Commission, at the office thereof, in the 
city of Washington. 
Witness, 

Alexander S. Johnson, 

Commissioner. 
John Rose, 
Commissioner for Gf-reat Britain. 



205 



INSTRUCTIONS. 

BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION ON HUDSON'S BAY 
AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICULTURAL COMPANIES' CLAIMS. 

In the matter of the Claim of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
Company against the United States of America. 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE EXECUTION OF THE COMMISSION. 

The deposition may be preceded by the following heading: 

" Deposition of , a witness sworn and examined in 

the Island of Dry Tortugas, State of Florida, by virtue of 
this Commission, issued by the Hon. John Rose and the Hon. 
Alexander S. Johnson, Commissioners, to me directed for the 
examination of a witness in the matter of the claim of the 
Puget's Sound Agricultural Company against the United 
States of America." 

The Commissioner then calls the witness before him, and 
administers to him the following oath, namely : 

" You swear that the evidence you shall give in the mat- 
ter of the claim of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company 
against the United States of America shall be the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God." 

The witness having been thus sworn, the evidence given by 
him will be reduced to writing, thus : 

"Bennett H. Hill, brevet lieutenant colonel in the Army of 
the United States, now on duty at the Island of Dry Tortu- 
gas, a witness produced on the part and behalf of the United 
States, in answer to the following interrogatories and cross- 
interrogatories, deposeth and says as follows." 

When the deposition of the witness is concluded, he must 
subscribe his name thereto. 

The deposition, with all documents and papers, if any, ac- 
companying the same, will be returned before the Commis- 
sioners with all convenient diligence. 

In returning this Commission, your attention is called to the 
certificate required by the revised Regulations for the Army, 
Article 1031. 

Attest : George Gibbs, 

Clerk. 



206 

In the matter of the Claim of the Hudson 's Bay Company, now 
pending before the British and American Joint Commis- 
sion, on the Claims of the Hudson's Bay and Puget's 
Sound Agricultural Compaiues against the United States. 

Interrogatories to be addressed on behalf of the United States 
to Brevet Lieutenant Colonel Bennett H. Hill, now sta- 
tioned at Fort Jefferson, Dry Tortugas. 

Ques. 1. — What is your name, place of residence, and pres- 
ent occupation ? 

Ques. 2. — Have you ever resided in Washington Territory ? 
If yea, where, and when, and for how long a period ? 

Ques. 3. — Have you any knowledge of the tract of land at 
Nisqually Plains, so-called, in Washington Territory, which is 
claimed by the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company? If 
yea, please to describe the same, giving, as fully as you can, 
the character and extent of that part, if any, which is wood- 
land or swamp, the character and extent of that part, if any, 
which is suitable for tillage, the character and extent of that 
part, if any, which is suitable for grazing, and any other facts 
or circumstances, which, in your opinion, may enter into a full 
description of the land in question. 

Ques. 4. — Have you any knowledge of the value of the dif- 
ferent portions of this tract at the time that you resided in 
Washington Territory ? If yea, please to state what, in your 
opinion, was their value at that time. 

Ques. 5. — Have you any knowledge of the fort and build- 
ings and improvements connected therewith, which were within 
the limits of this claim at Nisqually, and were occupied by 
the servants of this Company ? If yea, please to describe the 
same, giving their condition, and the character of their con- 
struction as fully as you can. 

Ques. 6. — Have you any knowledge of the value of the fort 
and buildings and improvements referred to in the previous 
question? If yea, please to state what, in your judgment, was 
their value at the time you were acquainted with them. 

Ques. 7. — Have you any knowledge of any cattle, or sheep, 
or horses, which were owned by the Puget's Sound Agricul- 
tural Company, and pastured upon the plains at Nisqually? 
If yea, please to state, if you know, the number of such which 



207 

were pastured by the Company upon said plains at the time 
that you were there. 

Ques. 8.— Have you any knowledge of the character of the 
different breeds of cattle and horses and sheep, which are re- 
ferred to in the previous question ? If yea, please to describe 
the same, and state, if you know, whether they were of a 
superior or inferior quality. 

Ques. 9. — Have you any knowledge, from experience or 
observation, or otherwise, of the effect of cultivation or con- 
dition of the soil, for the most part, on the plains at Nisqually ? 
If yea, unless this point be substantially covered by a previous 
answer, please to describe the same as particularly as you can. 

Ques 10. — Have you knowledge of any other matter which 
may affect the claims of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Com- 
pany against the United States ? If yea, please to state the 
same as fully as if you were specially interrogated in relation 
thereto. C. Gushing, 

Counsel for the United States. 



In the matter of the Claims of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
Company, now pending before the British and American 
Joint Commission on the Claims of the Hudson's Bay and 
Puget's Sound Agricultural Companies against the United 
States. 

Cross-Interrogatories to be addressed, on behalf of the Puget's 
Sound Agricultural Company, to Brevet Lieutenant Col- 
onel Bennett H. Hill, now stationed at Fort Jefferson, 
Dry Tortugas. 

Int. 1. — While you were stationed at Fort Steilacoom, did 
you pay any attention to agricultural pursuits, or were you 
attending to your professional duties? 

Int. 2. — Is not your knowledge of the quality of the soil, 
its division into arable and pasture lands, and the proportion 
of each kind of land, if you have any knowledge on these 
subjects, derived from your rides along the roads leading over 
the plains, and chiefly to the road leading to the Company's 
Fort at Nisqually and the town of Olympia? 

Int. 3. — At the time you were stationed at Steilacoom, was 
not the number of settlers quite small on the plains, and the 
15 P 



208 

amount of arable land on the river and creek bottoms and in 
the swales unknown ? 

Int. 4. — If your rides extended in any direction off the 
main roads mentioned in the second interrogatory, did you 
pay particular attention to the soil for any purpose other than 
to find the best road to ride upon ? 

Int. 5. — Did you, at any time, give especial attention to 
these plains with a view to ascertain their productive quality 
or to discover how much arable land there might be upon them, 
or what farms might be made when a demand for produce 
should stimulate settlement and agricultural activity? 

Int. 6. — In estimating the value of those lands, did you take 
into consideration the facts mentioned in interrogatory 5? 

Int. 7. — In estimating the value of those lands, when you 
were there, did you take into consideration the scarcity of 
prairie land compared to the vast extent of forests in the 
Puget's Sound country, the cost of clearing land of the large 
trees for either cultivation or pasturage, and the probabilities 
of future settlement or not ? 

Int. 8.— Did you while at Fort Steilacoom buy or sell any 
lands, or know the saleable value of these lands ? 

Int. 9. — If you answer that you do know of sales or the 
saleable value of these lands, please state whether anything 
was conveyed to the purchaser except the mere possession ? 

Int. 10. — Did not the forces of the United States occupy 
and pay rent for certain buildings of the Puget's Sound Agri- 
cultural Company while you were at Fort Steilacoom? 

Int. 11. — Had you, while at Fort Steilacoom, any practical 
knowledge of the price of labor or cost of lumber? 

Int. 12. — Have you ever paid enough attention to the erec- 
tion of buildings, the amount of lumber required in one of a 
certain size, as to be able to tell the amount of lumber in any 
particular building, or the cost of erecting it? 

Int. 13. — Did you buy or sell any buildings at this tin^e or 
have any means of ascertaining the value of buildings in that 
section of the country ? 

Int. 14. — Did you make any particular inquiry into the num- 
ber of cattle, horses, or sheep on the plains belonging to the 
Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, while you were there, 



209 

or is your estimate of their number merely the result of obser- 
vation made while riding ? 

Int. 15. — Were not the plains, to the best of your knowledge, 
at the time you first came to Fort Steilacoom, covered and de- 
pastured by the horses, cattle, and sheep of the Puget's Sound 
Agricultural Company ? 

Int. 16. — Are you prepared to state the different breeds of 
sheep, cattle, and horses owned by the Company ? If so, state 
what portion of the sheep were imported South-Down and 
Leicester, and if you can, what number of their cattle were 
of American breeds. How many of their horses were Amer- 
ican, how many Indian, how many Spanish ? 

Int. 17. — Do you know of your own personal knowledge, of 
any piece or pieces of ground on the Nisqually Plains that 
had been ploughed and cultivated, and have you noticed per- 
sonally the effect produced by it? If so, state where this 
piece or pieces of land were situated, how much land there 
was in that piece, and who cultivated it. 

Int. 18. — Did not these plains afford good pasturage to the 
stock you saw ranging there ? 

Int. 19. — What was your rank in the Army of the United 
States when you were at Fort Steilacoom ? 

Chas. D. Day, 
Counsel for the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company. 



Deposition of Lieutenant Colonel Bennett H. Hill, Brevet 
Brigadier General U. S. Army, a witness sworn and ex- 
amined in the Island of the Dry Tortugas, State of Flor- 
ida, by virtue of this Commission, issued by the Honorable 
John Rose and the Honorable Alexander S. Johnson, Com- 
missioners, to me directed for the examination of a witness 
in the matter of the claim of the Puget's Sound Agricul- 
tural Company against the United States of America. 
Testimony of Bvt. Bbig. Gen. Bennett H. Hill. 
Brevet Brigadier General Bennett H. Hill, Lieutenant Col- 
onel U. S. Army, now on duty at Fort Jefferson, Dry Tortugas, 
Florida, a witness produced on the part and behalf of the Uni- 
ted States of America, in answer to the following interroga- 
tories and cross-interrogatories, deposeth and says as follows : 



210 

Answers to Questions. 

Ques. 1. — My name is Bennett H. Hill, my present residence 
Fort Jefferson, Florida, and I am by occupation an officer of 
the United States Army. 

Ques. 2. — I was stationed, as an officer of the army, at Fort 
Steilacoom, Washington Territory, and commanded that post 
from September, 1849, until some time in the early part of 
1853, with the exception of an interval of some months that 
I was on leave of absence. 

Ques. 3. — The knowledge that I have of the Nisqually Plains 
is that derived from having been stationed at Fort Steilacoom, 
which is on the tract claimed by the Puget's Sound Company, 
from having ridden over many parts of the tract in question, 
and from the information obtained from officers, soldiers, and 
citizens, who hunted over or explored the country. These 
plains lie very high above the level of the waters of the Sound, 
from one hundred and fifty (150) to two hundred (200) feet, I 
should think. The soil is most generally sandy and gravelly. 
I considered very little of it fit for cultivation ; the grass on 
those plains was also very short and sparse. There was gen- 
erally a belt of pine timber extending back from the shores 
of the Sound about a mile. There were several small lakes 
and streams in the plains, whose banks were fringed with 
timber; also some scattered oak trees here and there on the 
plains. I do not remember to have seen or heard of any swamp 
lands on those plains. I cannot give the extent of the wood- 
land, and my opinion was that the plains in question were un- 
suitable for cultivation, by reason of the sandy and gravelly 
soil and dry summers, except in a few patches of limited ex- 
tent, and that the plains afforded very indifferent grazing. 

Ques. 4. — I had no knowledge of the value of the different 
portions of the tract in question. At the time I was there the 
Government donated land to actual settlers, and they sought 
the most favorable locations ; but few settled in the Nisqually 
Plains except for other reasons than cultivation of the soil. 

Ques. 5. — I visited the Puget's Sound Company's fort at 
Nisqually frequently when I was stationed at Fort Steilacoom. 
As I remember it, it was a square stockade work, formed of light 
logs, set upright; how large I cannot state, but my recollection 



211 

is that each face was about one hundred (100) yards \ I think, 
also, there was arrangement for flank defence. There were 
quarters inside the work for Dr. Tolmie, who was in charge, 
also quarters for a few employes, and store-house or store- 
houses. These buildings were, as I remember them, plainly and 
rudely built, either of logs or boards. There were a few out- 
houses and barns outside of the fort, and cabins for Indian em- 
ployes, and about one hundred acres of ground under fence; 
there was also a store-house on the beach at the foot of the hill. 
I understood, also, that there were some shepherd's cabins on 
the plains, but I do not remember now to have seen any of them. 
Ques. 6. — I first visited Fort Nisqually about 1st September, 
1849, and presumed it had been built before the price of labor 
and material was increased by the discovery of gold in Cali- 
fornia, and I supposed that Indian labor entered largely into 
its construction and into the improvements made; but I do not 
know how long it had been built, or with what kind of labor. 
The fort itself was of value only for the purposes for which it 
had been built. It is impossible for me now to estimate, with 
any degree of accuracy, the value of the fort and improve- 
ments at the time I was in Washington Territory. 

Ques. 7. — The Puget's Sound Agricultural Company owned 
and raised cattle and sheep. They were far from numerous, 
compared to the ground over which they grazed, and I think 
they were being sent to Vancouver's Island as often as oppor- 
tunity offered. I cannot state the numbers of cattle or sheep 
owned by that Company. No horses were owned, except those 
for ordinary use, and I never understood that the Company 
pretended to raise horses on the Nisqually Plains. 

Ques. 8.— The cattle were of inferior quality ; they were 
generally small and thin, and very wild. I supposed they 
were of Spanish or mixed breeds. The sheep were, so far as 
I knew and understood, of very good quality. As I pre- 
viously stated, the Company had only a few horses at Fort 
Nisqually. These were the common Indian horse. 

Ques. 9. — None other, except the observation of the effect of 
cultivation by the Puget's Sound Company, and experience in 
gardening. The Puget's Sound Company cultivated some fields 
near Fort Steilacoom one or two seasons. The crop was wheat, 
and the yield was reaped and sold for forage to the quarter- 



212 

master of the post, if I remember rightly. The season after my 
arrival at Fort Steilacoom, a post-garden was attempted, with 
the view of supplying the officers and soldiers with vegetables, 
and a piece of ground selected near the post that seemed to offer 
the best prospect of success, but it failed entirely; the ground 
was too sandy and gravelly and poor. I then had an examination 
of the country about the post made, and about three or four miles 
from the post a small piece of very good land was found. There 
were only twelve or fourteen acres of it, which I caused to be 
fenced in, and here we were very successful in gardening. 

Ques. 10. — The claim of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
Company was, as I understood it to be, about ten miles (10) 
square. The metes and bounds of that claim were not, how- 
ever, marked off, to my knowledge, when I arrived at Puget's 
Sound ; but a man, as I remember, was engaged in the winter 
of 1852 and 1853 to run and mark the extent of the claim. 
Steilacoom had been a farm, and was in the possession of the 
Puget's Sound Company when I arrived on Puget's Sound. 
The farm buildings were rented by the acting assistant quar- 
termaster on the part of the United States. The barn was 
converted into quarters for my company. It was built of 
small logs, and roofed with bark. So also the farm-house, 
which I occupied myself as quarters, but subsequently im- 
proved. There was also a granary, kitchen, and other out- 
buildings, all roofed with bark, and, like all the buildings of 
the Puget's Sound Company on the Sound, very rudely built. 
Answers to Cross-Interrogatories. 

Int. 1. — I paid no attention to agricultural pursuits, except 
so far as is mentioned in answer to Question 9; and I was 
engaged in attending to my professional duties. 

Int. 2. — The opinion formed and expressed in answer to 
Question No. 3 was derived from riding along the road leading 
to Fort Nisqually, along the road leading to the upper crossing 
of the Nisqually — I mean the road to the Cowlitz farms — along 
the road leading from Fort Steilacoom to the Puyallup river, to 
rides over the country in the neighborhood of the post of Steila- 
coom,and to the information I would obtain from officers, soldiers, 
and citizens who either hunted over or explored the country. 

Int. 3. — There were but few settlers on the plains ; but the 



213 

amount of arable land on the river and creek bottoms, &c, 
was well known, I believe, to all interested on the subject. 

Int. 4. — My rides off the main roads were for pleasure, and 
I had no object in paying particular attention to the soil. 

Int. 5. — I did not give especial attention to these plains to 
ascertain their productive quality, except so far as is men- 
tioned in answer to Question No. 9. 

Int. 6. — I have not expressed an opinion of the value of the 
lands in question, except that they were, in my opinion, un- 
suitable for cultivation, and very inferior for grazing pur- 
poses ; and I do not think I ever heard any other opinion ex- 
pressed of them by persons who examined the lands. 

Int. 7. — Ihavenot estimated thevalueof thelandsin question. 

Int. 8. — I did not buy or sell any lands whilst I was at Steila- 
coom ; nor do I think any lands were sold whilst I was there. It 
may be that premiums were paid for squatters' rights to claims. 

Int. 9. — I have replied that I do not know of sales of land 
whilst at Fort Steilacoom. 

Int. 10. — The United States paid rent for certain buildings 
that were in the possession of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
Company when I arrived on Puget's Sound, and continued to 
pay rent for them while I was at Steilacoom. 

Int. 11. — I had practical knowledge of the price of labor 
and cost of lumber only so far as it was employed or pur- 
chased by the United States at Fort Steilacoom. 

Int. 12. — I have paid no attention to the erection of build- 
ings or their cost, except such buildings as would be erected 
on the frontier by the labor principally of the troops. 

Int. 13. — I did not buy or sell any buildings in Washington 
Territory. I have not estimated the value of the buildings in 
that section of the country. The buildings in that section of 
the country at the time I was there were of a very rough, 
plain character. 

Int. 14. — I have not given an estimate of the number of 
cattle or sheep owned by the Puget's Sound Company. I have 
no doubt but that I inquired the number, but I do not remem- 
ber at this time. I have stated that the Puget's Sound Com- 
pany did not own at Nisqually any horses beyond the number 
required for their ordinary use. This information I must have 
acquired both from observation and information. 



214 

Int. 15. — The plains were not covered with cattle, sheep, and 
horses at the time of my arrival at Steilacoom. The grazing, 
I remember, was very indifferent ; in fact, it was so poor that 
it would not support the ox teams we had to employ at that 
time, and the difficulty of purchasing forage occasioned great 
inconvenience. 

Int. 16. — I cannot state the breeds of sheep owned by the 
Puget's Sound Company. They were generally esteemed, if 
I remember rightly, of excellent quality. The cattle were 
very inferior, small, lean, and wild. I considered that they 
were of Spanish or mixed breeds. The horses in use by the 
Company at Fort Nisqually were the common Indian horse. 

Int. 17. — I can give no other answer to this interrogatory 
than that contained in answer to Question No. 9. I may have 
also seen the effect of cultivation on the fields of the Puget's 
Sound Company near Fort Nisqually, but I do not remember 
to have done so. The fields I refer to in my answer to Ques- 
tion No. 9 were situated near to Fort Steilacoom. They were 
cultivated for the Puget's Sound Company by its servants, 
and I do not remember to have seen the ploughing of them. 
I think the fields contained some fifteen or twenty acres. 

Int. 18. — I considered that they afforded very inferior 
pasturage. 

Int. 19. — I was a captain in the army of the United States 
at the time I was at Fort Steilacoom. 

B. H. Hill, 
Lt. Col. 5th U. S. Arty, and Bvt. Brig. Qenl U. S. A. 



The above depositions, in answer to questions on behalf of the United States, 
and in answer to cross-interrogations on behalf of the Puget's Sound Agricul- 
tural Company, were duly sworn and subscribed to before me this twentieth 

day of October, 1866. 

B. W. BITTENHOUSE, 
1st Lieut. 5th U. S. Art'y, Bvt. Major U. S. A. , 



Fort Jefferson, Florida, 

October 22, 1866. 

I certify on honor that there is not a civil magistrate at this post competent 
to administer oath, that there is not a judge advocate at the post, nor is there 
a garrison or regimental court in session, nor an adjutant of a regiment. 

B. H. HILL, 
Lieut. Col. 5th Arty, and Bvt. Brig. Gertl U. S. A. 



BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION 



HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICUL- 
TURAL COMPANIES. 



In the matter of the Claim of the JPugefs Sound Agricultural 
Company against the United States of America. 

To Robert McPhail Smith, Esq., Clerk of the United States 
Circuit Court, Nashville, Tennessee, Notary Public, 
Nashville, or any other person duly authorized to take 
depositions in the State of Tennessee: 

Know ye, that in confidence of your prudence and fidelity, 
you have been appointed, and by these presents, you, or any 
one of you, is invested with full power and authority to examine 
Brevet Brigadier General August V. Kautz, on his corporal 
oath, as a witness in the above-entitled cause, upon the inter- 
rogations annexed to this commission on the part of the 
United States, and the cross-interrogatories thereto annexed 
by the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company. 

Therefore, you are hereby required, that you, or either of 
you, at certain days and places, to be appointed by you for 
that purpose, do cause the said Brevet Brigadier General Au- 
gust V. Kautz to come before you, and then and there examine 
him on oath on said interrogations and cross-interrogatories, 
and reduce the same to writing, in conformity with instructions 
hereto annexed. And when the said deposition shall have 
been completed, you will return the same, annexed to this 
writ, closed up under your seal, and addressed by you, by 
mail, to George Gibbs, Esq., Clerk of said Commission, at the 
office thereof in the city of Washington. 
Witness: 

Alexander S. Johnson, 

Commissioner, 
John Rose, 

Coin, for Great Britain. 



216 



INSTRUCTIONS. 

BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION ON HUDSON'S BAY 
AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICULTURAL COMPANIES' CLAIMS. 

In the matter of the Claim of the Pugetfs Sound Agricultural 
Company against the United States of America. 

Instructions for the Execution of the Commission. 

The deposition may be preceded by the following heading: 

" Deposition of , a witness sworn and exam- 
ined in the city of New Orleans, in the State of Louisiana, by 
virtue of this Commission, issued by the Honorable John 
Rose and the Honorable Alexander S. Johnson, Commission- 
ers, to me directed, for the examination of a witness in the 
matter of the claim of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Com- 
pany against the United States of America." 

The Commissioner then calls the witness before him, and ad- 
ministers to him the following oath, namely: 

" You swear that the evidence you shall give in the matter 
of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against the United 
States of America shall be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God." 

The witness having been thus sworn, the evidence given by 
him will be reduced to writing, thus : 

" August V. Kaulz, Brevet Brigadier General in the army 
of the United States, now on duty at the city of New Orleans, 
a witness produced on the part and behalf of the United States, 
in answer to the following interrogatories and cross-interrog- 
atories, deposeth and says as follows:" 

When the deposition of the witness is concluded, he must 
subscribe his name thereto. 

The deposition, with all documents and papers, if any, ac- 
companying the same, will be returned before the Commis- 
sioners with all convenient diligence. 

Attest: George Gibbs, 

Clerk. 



217 

In the matter of the Claims of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
Company, now pending before the British and American 
Joint Commission on the Claims of the Hudson's Bay and 
Puget's Sound Agricultural Companies against the United 
States. 

Interrogatories to be addressed on behalf of the United States 
to Brevet Brigadier General August V. Kautz, of New 
Orleans, in the State of Louisiana. 

Ques. 1. — What is your nam^ place of residence, and 
present occupation ? 

Ques. 2. — Have you ever resided in Washington Territory ; 
if yea, when and where, and for how long a period ? 

Ques. 3. — Have you any knowledge of the tract of land at 
Nisqually Plains, so called, in Washington Territory, which is 
claimed by the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company ? If yea, 
please to describe the same, giving, as fully as you can, the 
character and extent of that part, if any, which is open prai- 
rie land, the character and extent of that part, if any, [which 
is] woodland or swamp ; the character and extent of that part, 
if any, which is suitable for tillage ; and the character and 
extent of that part, if any, which is suitable for grazing ; 
and any other fact or circumstance which, in your opinion, 
may enter into a full description of the land in question. 

Ques. Sa.— Have you any knowledge, from experience or 
observation, of the effect of cultivation on the condition of 
the soil at the Nisqually Plains, so called ? If yea, please to 
describe the same as particularly as you can. 

Ques. 4. — Have you any knowledge of the value of the 
different portions of the tract at the time that you resided in 
Washington Territory ? If yea, please to state what, in your 
opinion, was their value at that time. 

Ques. 5. — Have you any knowledge of any fort, or build- 
ings, or improvements of any kind, which were claimed and 
occupied by the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, and 
were within the limits of their land claim at Nisqually Plains? 
If yea, please to describe the same, giving their condition and 
the character of their construction as fully as you can. 



218 

Ques. 6. — Have you any knowledge of the value of the fort, 
and the buildings and improvements connected therewith, re- 
ferred to in the previous question? If yea, please to state 
what, in your judgment, was their value at the time that you 
had an opportunity to observe them. 

Ques. 7. — Have you any knowledge of any cattle or horses 
or sheep which were owned by the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
Company, and pastured upon the plains at Nisqually ? If yea, 
please to state, if you know, the number of such kind which 
were pastured upon said plains at the time you were there. 

Ques. 8. — Have you any knowledge of the character of the 
different breeds of cattle and horses and sheep which were 
owned by the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company? If yea, 
please to describe the same, and state, if you know, whether 
they were of a superior or inferior quality. 

Ques. 9. — Have you any knowledge of any other matter which 
may affect the claims of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Com- 
pany against the United States ? If yea, please to state the 
same, as fully as if you were specially interrogated in relation 
thereto. 

C. CUSHING, 

Counsel for the United States. 

In the matter of the Claims of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
Company, now pending before the British and American 
Joint Commission on the Hudson s Bay and Puget's Sound 
Agricultural Companies' Claims against the United States. 

Cross-interrogatories to be addressed, on behalf of the Puget's 
Sound Agricultural Company, to Brevet Brigadier Gen- 
eral August Y. Kautz, now stationed at New Orleans, in 
the State of Louisiana. 

Int. 1. — For what length of time were you stationed at 
Fort Steilacoom, and in what years ? 

Int. 2. — Were you ever engaged in agricultural pursuits 
while at Fort Steilacoom, or were you occupied in the duties 
of your profession ? 

Int. 3. — Is not your knowledge of the quality of the soil of 



219 

the Nisqually Plains, their division into arable and pasture 
lands, and the proportion of each kind of land, derived, if at 
all, from what knowledge you acquired from your rides in 
certain directions, for fishing and perhaps hunting, and on the 
roads leading to the Puyallup river and the town of Olympia? 

Int. 4.— During the Indian war, when you were traveling 
off these roads in search of hostile parties of Indians, were 
you not giving more attention to the finding of the enemy 
than to the examination of the soil ? 

Int. 5. — Is there not in bottoms of the creeks and rivers, in 
the swales and lower grounds of these plains, a considerable 
amount of land suitable for cultivation, and much of it that 
would be called rich farming land? 

Int. 6. — Did you remain at Fort Steilacoom until the set- 
tlers had located some one hundred and fifty farms on these 
plains ? If not, how many settlers were there when you left ? 

Int. 7. — Do not the whole of those open lands, that are not 
cultivated, afford good pasturage for sheep and cattle? 

Int. 8. — Can you, from your own personal knowledge, say 
that you ever saw any portion of those plains under the 
plough, and afterwards noticed the effect which that culti- 
vation or ploughing had on that particular portion thus 
ploughed and cultivated ? 

Int. 9. — When you first came to Fort Steilacoom, were not 
the forces there quartered in buildings owned by the Puget's 
Sound Company, for which rent was paid at the rate of $50 
per month ? If you do not know the fact as to the payment 
of rent, please answer the first part of the question. 

Int. 10. — Were there not scattered around those plains log 
buildings, used by shepherds of the Company ? 

Int. 11. — In answering the six interrogatories-in-chief, as 
to the buildings of the Company and their value, does your 
estimate include the new house, built by the agent in charge, 
or is it made before that building was erected ? 

Int. 12. — Was there not at the main post of the Company, 
at the time you left there, a large and good barn and sheds, 
one new, and for that country, valuable dwelling-house, one 



220 

older dwelling-house, two store-houses, besides the smaller 
dwellings of the employes of the Company ? 

Int. 13. — Are you a builder or mechanic, accustomed by the 
eye to estimate the size of buildings and the quantity of lum- 
ber required to build them, or have you such an acquaintance 
with the price of lumber, the cost of labor, and the cost of 
transportation, for a series of years, as to enable you to say 
what these buildings cost the Company, or what they were 
worth in 1846, or at any time since then to the present date? 

Int. 14. — Is your idea of the value of these lands derived 
from any estimate based upon their productiveness and the 
value of produce, and have you taken into consideration the 
value of pasturage, the price of beef, the market value of 
sheep and wool, and the adaptation and fitness of those lands 
for sheep and cattle-raising ? 

Int. 15. — In estimating their value, have you taken into 
consideration the fact that this is the largest and most im- 
portant body of open lands on the shores of Puget's Sound 
suitable for pasturage ? 

Int. 16. — At the time you were at Fort Steilacoom, had the 
great demand for cattle for the Victoria market began ? If so, 
have you thought of that in valuing these lands ? 

Int. 17. — At what date is your estimate of value made? 

Int. 18. — What do you know of any sales of land on these 
plains, of your personal knowledge ? 

Int. 19. — Was there not an Indian war going on during a 
considerable portion of the time you were stationed at Fort 
Steilacoom, and were you not personally very active in it? 

Int. 20. — At the time you were stationed at Fort Steila- 
coom, had not the original cattle of the Company nearly dis- 
appeared, and were not those then owned by the Company 
chiefly what were called American cattle? 

Int. 21. — Had not the Company large flocks of sheep pas- 
turing on those plains ? 

Int. 22. — Were there not, at the time you left Fort Steila- 
coom, besides sheep and cattle of the Company, all the cattle 
and sheep of the settlers, pasturing on these plains ? 



221 

Int. 23. — If you know the number of cattle and sheep be- 
longing to the settlers at the time you left, please state the 
number. 

Int. 24. — If you have been unable to answer the 23d inter- 
rogatory particularly, state if they had not a large number of 
cattle and sheep pastured on those plains at the time you left 
Steilacoom. 

Int. 25. — What was your rank in the army of the United 
States when you were stationed at Fort Steilacoom? 

Chas. D. Day, 
Counsel for the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company. 



United States of America, 1 
State of Tennessee, City of Nashville, j 

BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION ON HUDSON'S BAY 
AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICULTURAL COMPANIES' CLAIMS. 

In the matter of the Claim of the latter Company against the 
United States of America. 

Deposition of August V. Kautz, Lieut. Colonel 34th Infantry, 
and Brevet Major General United States Army, now 
awaiting orders at Nashville, Tennessee, a witness sworn 
and examined in the city of Nashville and State of Ten- 
nessee, by virtue of the annexed commission issued by 
the Hon. John Rose and the Hon. Alex. S. Johnson, 
Commissioners, to me directed, for the examination of 
said witness in the matter of the claims of the Puget's 
Sound Agricultural Company vs. The United States of 
America. 

Testimony of Bvt. Maj. Gen. August V. Kautz. 

Said witness, produced on behalf of said United States, be- 
ing duly sworn to speak the truth, the whole truth, and noth- 
ing but the truth, in the matter of the claim last aforesaid, in 
answer to the annexed interrogatories and cross-interrogato- 
ries, deposeth and says as follows, his answers being num- 
bered to correspond with said interrogatories and cross-inter- 
rogatories. 



% 222 
Answers to Direct Interrogatories. 

1. My name is August V. Kautz ; I am an officer of the 
United States Army, and at present awaiting orders at Nash- 
ville, Tennessee. 

2. I was stationed in Washington Territory first from Jan- 
uary to March, in the year 1853, at Fort Vancouver, and 
then from March to July of the same year, at Fort Steilacoom. 
In February, 1856, I returned to Fort Steilacoom from Ore" 
gon, and remained there until October, 1858, when I was sta- 
tioned at Simiahmoo Bay until April, 1859. I then left the 
Territory, and returned to it again in the fall of 1860, and 
was stationed at Gray's Harbor until May, 1861. 

3. I became well acquainted with the tract known as the 
Nisqually Plains during the three years I was stationed at 
Fort Steilacoom. They comprise an area of about ten or 
twelve miles square, and constitute a table-land comparatively 
level, about 200 feet above the Sound waters, and they are 
interspersed with patches of woods, swamps, thickets, and 
lakes. The lakes, swamps, and wooded portions I estimate 
as together constituting from one-fifth to one-fourth of the 
whole tract. The land is very poor and unproductive. When 
I was last there, all the land regarded as worth tilling was 
already claimed by settlers, and under cultivation. This 
however, in my opinion, did not exceed one-twentieth of the 
entire tract. Very little of the ground under cultivation 
would be considered as worth tilling in Illinois. The soil is 
very gravelly, and yields a very sparse, thin grass. This is 
good, but of such slow growth and so thinly scattered, that I 
should call the lands poor grazing-lands. The wooded parts 
were generally either wooded knolls or swamps. The former 
were more unproductive .than the open plains; the latter, in 
some cases,»were capable of being drained and tilled to some 
extent. 

3 a. I know the soil to be very poor, and the extent of cul- 
tivation very limited. We had the garden for the post, a small 
tract of about eight acres, between four and five miles distant, 
and the settlers could not supply enough grain to feed the 
public animals at the post, numbering about ninety. 



'223 

4. I cannot give the money value of the land, as it was not 
in the market while I was there. When claims were sold the 
improvements constituted the greater part of their value. 
Good agricultural land was chiefly valuable there on account 
of its scarcity, which was very great. 

5. I know respecting the post at Fort Nisqually, which, 
when I first saw it in 1853, consisted of a stockade twenty 
feet high, with two block houses on opposite corners, one or 
two dwelling-houses, and two storehouses, and a number of 
smaller houses for the servants and employes of the Company. 
These were all log buildings — some of them of hewn logs ; but 
the whole establishment was in a dilapidated condition, and 
between the time I first and that I last saw it much of the 
stockade had fallen down and been replaced, and the dwelling- 
houses and one of the storehouses had been replaced by two 
board buildings. There were a number of outbuildings, in- 
cluding a barn, also quite old and rotten. They had other 
buildings, on other portions of the tract, one of which was 
known as the Muck Farm and another as the Dean Farm. I 
believe there were also a few others, but I did not know much 
about them. The Muck and Dean Farms each consisted of a 
farm-house and a number of outbuildings, built of logs, and 
not of very great value. Each one of these places had some 
land enclosed and under cultivation ; but these tracts were 
not large — somewhere between twenty and forty acres each. 

6. Fort Nisqually, with all its improvements, fencing, out- 
houses, &c, may have cost the Company from $10,000 to 
$15,000, and the two farms from $1,000 to $2,000 each; but 
they were not worth that when I saw them, as they were in a 
decaying condition. The two new board buildings, I should 
say, cost together about $6,000. 

7. I do not know the number of horses, cattle, and sheep. 
I remember that I saw several large droves of wild cattle on 
the plains, in 1853, belonging to the Company, none after 
that. I saw a great many sheep belonging to the Company, 
after I went back in 1856; of the number of horses I have no 
particular knowledge. I do not remember to have seen more 
than three or four hundred head of cattle in one drove, more 

16 P 



224 

than a thousand head of sheep, nor [more] than from fifteen 
to twenty head of horses; but I have reason to believe that 
they had two or three droves of this description, perhaps one 
of each to each post or farm. 

8. I know something of the quality of the cattle and horses; 
the cattle were of what is called in that country the Spanish 
breed, very wild and only good for beef; the horses were such 
as are bred by Indians generally, and of inferior quality. I 
know nothing about the quality of the sheep. 

9. I may state that many of the settlers were followers 
and discharged employes of the Company, who gave the Com- 
pany much trouble. Some of them pre-empted the land they 
were engaged to hold and work for the Company. Large 
claims were taken, which secured, however, only a compara- 
tively small part for tillage to each farm. A small fertile spot 
of a few acres was sufficient to locate a farm ; that included all 
the good land, and the full extent of the claim was made up 
of the best that could be found around the more fertile spot. 
The Company obtained a contract to supply the military 
post with fresh beef for several years ; I remember the lowest 
price was thirteen cents, and the highest eighteen cents and a 
fraction. The Company had sheep-folds located on various 
parts of the plains, convenient for changing the grazing, which, 
on account of the poor character of this, had to be done very 
often. The settlers coming in with more or less stock, to- 
gether with the stock of the military post, made the grazing 
very poor for all parties, although, when I left that country, 
there was not more than one animal to ten acres of open land. 
I understood the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company to claim 
from the Nisqually river to the Puyallup river, and from the 
waters of the Sound to the mountains east. The plains do not 
cover more than one-fourth of this area, and all the improve- 
ments of the Company were confined to the plains ; the rest 
is woodland. 

Answers to Cross-Interrogatories. 

1. I was stationed, about three months in 1853, and about 
three years, from February, 1856, to October, 1858, at Fort 
Steilacoom. 



225 

2. I never was engaged in agricultural pursuits on my own 
account, but some of the duties I had to discharge necessa- 
rily rendered me acquainted to some extent with the re- 
sources of the country. I sometimes had charge of the post 
garden, and as quartermaster and commissary, purchased 
many of the supplies ; and, indeed, the post was the principal 
market for the settlers of the Nisqually Plains. 

3. My knowledge of the tract of land is derived, in part, 
from hunting and fishing excursions, and I am more familiar 
with the roads mentioned than with any other ; but I also rode 
about a great deal on duty, making purchases, and for other 
purposes, and the public animals, for which I was responsible, 
were grazed in part on the plains. 

4. During the Indian war, my excursions extended beyond 
the Nisqually Plains, but my attention was directed to every 
quality of the country passed through, as we are generally 
required to make reports of the character of the country 
passed over, and to furnish maps of the route. 

5. All the grounds that were considered good for farming 
were in the swales and creek-bottoms and the edges of swamps ; 
but very little of it could be called good farming land. I re- 
member only one creek of any extent, Muck Creek and its 
tributaries ; Steilacoom Creek and the creek near Fort Nis- 
qually are short outlets to lakes, and the good land forms a 
very small portion of the whole tract. 

6. I .don't think there were as many as 150 settlers on the 
plains when I last had an opportunity of learning ; my opinion 
is there were fewer than 100. 

7. The pasturage could not be considered rich, though the 
cattle did very well on it till they became too numerous. 
There was no good pasturage there when I last saw it ; it 
had been eaten off and injured very much. 

8. I know quite a number of tracts. The post garden was 
a tract of seven or eight acres ; that made a very good gar- 
den for a year or two, but after that required manure. I 
saw the cultivation and produce of a number of other farms. 

9. I know' that $50 per month was paid for part of the 
buildings occupied by the troops. In 1857 the buildings were 



226 

so unserviceable that new buildings were erected and the old 
ones torn down, and the $50 a month was continued for the 
land on which the post stood, to compensate for the buildings 
torn down. 

10. There were quite a number of buildings at different 
points on the plains used by the employes of the Company. 

11. My estimate of the value of the two new houses exceeds 
my estimate of the original cost of the fort. 

12. I do not remember a good barn. The new dwelling- 
house I remember, and also the dwellings alluded to. 

13. I have had considerable experience in building, and be- 
lieve I can estimate the cost of building in that country. I 
had charge of the building of Fort Steilacoom in 1857 and 
1858, where the buildings were better and more numerous 
than at Fort Nisqually, and which cost the United States 
Government about $35,000, and I therefore know the cost of 
all the means and materials used in building at the time I was 
there. I don't know what it was in 1846, but am of the opin- 
ion that the expenses increased very much after the discovery 
of the gold mines in 1849. The work on the buildings at Fort 
Nisqually, except the two new houses, was very rough work, 
and was not done by skilled workmen. 

14. I believe I have taken into consideration every element 
mentioned in the interrogatory, though I have not estimated 
the money value of the land. 

15. I am aware of the fact stated in the interrogatory. 

16. Victoria had become quite a market when I was last on 
Puget's Sound, but I don't think that market materially 
affected the price of lands on Puget's Sound. 

17. I have not fixed the value of the land at any time. I 
never knew it to have any established value while I was at 
Fort Steilacoom. 

18. I know of no sales of land. I only know of offers to 
sell claims, and always understood them to be estimated 
mainly from the amount of improvement on the claim. 

19. The Indian hostilities, while I was at Forf Steilacoom, 
existed only from the time I joined, in February, to July of 
1856, and during the time I was active in it. 



227 

"20. When I was first at Fort Steilacoom, in 1853, I think 
there were very few American cattle on the plains. Before 
I left, most of the wild cattle had disappeared, and I know 
that Dr. Tolmie, the agent of the Company, "became quite a 
dealer in Oregon cattle. 

21. The Company had a large number of sheep ; I should 
.say three or four thousand, although there may have been 
more* 

22. The settlers used the pasturage all they could. 

23. I don't know the number, but the proportion of cattle 
and sheep to the amount of land was necessarily very smalL 

24. This is answered in my 23d answer. 

25. In 1853, I was Brevet Second Lieutenant. In 1856, 
and up to the time I left, I was First Lieutenant. 

August V. Kautz, 
Lt. -Col. 34th Infantry., Brevt Maj. CrenL 



United States of America, 1 

Middle District of Tennessee, j 
I, R. McP. Smith, clerk of the United States district court 
for said district, and commissioned as per the annexed com- 
mission by the Hon. Jno. Hose and the Hon. Alex. Johnson, 
to take the deposition of the witness aforesaid, hereby certify 
that said deposition, hereto annexed, was taken by me on the 
annexed interrogatories and cross-interrogatories, pursuant 
to the within instructions., at my office in Nashville, Tennes- 
see, on November 8, 1866; that the caption prefixed to said 
deposition is true; that said witness subscribed his name to 
said deposition in my presence, and that said deposition was 
reduced to writing by me, and retained unaltered in my pos- 
session until mailed in the post office at Nashville by me, as 
directed per the annexed instructions. 

In testimony whereof I subscribe my name hereto and affix 
the seal of said court this 8th day of November, 1866, 
■- " *-* and in the ninety-first year of our Independence, 

R. McP. Smith, 
Clerk Dist. Court of the United States 

for the Middle District of Tennessee. 



BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION 



OS THE 



HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICUL- 
TURAL 'COMPANIES' CLAIMS. 



In the matter of the Claim of the Pugefs Sound Agricultural 
Company against the United States. 

Deposition of Rear Admiral Charles Wilkes, United .States 
Navy, sworn and examined in the city of Charlotte,, 
county of Mecklenburg, State of North Carolina, in 
behalf of the United States of America, by virtue of an 
agreement between Chas. C. Beaman, Jr., Esq., agent 
and attorney for the United States of America, and 
Edward Lander, Esq., agent and attorney for the Puget's 
Sound Company, before me, Chas. Overman, a justice of 
the peace in and for the city of Charlotte,, county of 
Mecklenburg, State of North Carolina. 

Testimony of Rear Admiral Charles Wilkes. 

Int. 1. — What is your name, residence, and occupation ? 

Ans. — Charles Wilkes ; Washington, D. C. ; rear admiral,. 
Navy. 

Int. 2. — Were you connected with the Navy in the years 
1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, and 1842; and if so, in what particu- 
lar service were you engaged? 

Ans. — Command of the United States Exploring Expedition 
on a voyage of discovery and survey around the world. 

Int. 3. — What report of this expedition has ever been made, 
and by what authority has it been published ? 

Ans. — It was made by the direction of the Congress of the 
United States, and published by their authority, and at the 
expense of the Government. 



229 

Int. 4. — Was the report so published written by you ; and, 
if so, from what was it prepared ? 

Ans.— It was written by me entire — prepared from my own 
notes and from official reports made by the officers under me, 
in the carrying out of orders issued by me. 

Int. 5. — During this expedition did you visit Nisqually, /a 
station or fort on Puget's Sound; and, if so, how long did you 
remain ? 

Ans. — I did; and remained there upwards of three months, 
with an interval of a few days' absence, in the year 1841, from 
April to latter part of July. 

Int. 6. — What is its situation? 

Ans. — It is situated on a bank two hundred (200) feet high, 
running back on a level plain to some several miles. Situ- 
ation of the fort measures about (J) a half mile. 

Int. 7. — What was its value for commercial purposes ? 

Ans. — Very little; the anchorage is dangerous, from the 
immediate shelving of the bank to a great depth of water, and 
an entire exposure to the westerly winds. The bank is very 
difficult of ascent, and no space at its base to afford any build- 
ing site. 

Int. 8.— Of what did the fort consist? 

Ans. — Of a small stockade, two bastions at the corners, two 
hundred (200) feet square, with a central gate. In the interior 
there were several wooden buildings, some of logs and others 
of plank. Attached to the fort was a garden of a few acres. 

Int. 9. — What other buildings around the fort, for the pur- 
pose of storing grain or folding sheep ? 

Ans. — At the time of my visit there a few small shanties, 
probably three or four, a short distance from the fort ; but 
none suitable for granaries. Sheep and cattle were folded at 
night in movable pens, containing about one acre. 

Int. 10. — What was the value of all these buildings — of all 
the buildings at Nisqually ? 

Ans. — I should think five thousand dollars ($5,000) would 
have built them all, including the fort. 

Int. 11.— On what knowledge do you found your estimate ? 

Ans. — Upon the fact of my having built buildings for the 



230 

accommodation of my ship's crew, some two hundred men in 
number, houses for myself and officers, and for making pen- 
dulum experiments and observations for drafting, bakeries, 
and brewing. The space comprised of some six hundred (600) 
feet square, outside of which was a line of picket houses, some 
two hundred (200) yards distant, I suppose for the sentries — 
the whole assuming quite the appearance of a village. 

Int. 12. — What number of persons were employed by the 
Company at Nisqually ? 

Ans. — I think Mr. Anderson, the officer in charge of the 
fort, informed me that there were about twenty, (20,) exclusive 
of the women and children ; and, to my own knowledge, there 
were no more. 

(Any statement made by Mr. Anderson to the witness ob- 
jected to as incompetent. 

Int. 13. — How much land had been enclosed by the Com- 
pany ? 

Ans. — Besides the garden, there was a field of fifteen or 
twenty acres of wheat, or some other grain, and, in addition, 
some two or three hundred (200 or 300) acres being prepared 
for cultivation by movable pens, but only enclosed. While 
the fence was there, this last land had not yet been planted. 

Int. 14. — What was the character of the soil under cultiva- 
tion ? 

Ans. — I should call it a gravelly loam. 

Int. 15. — Whether or no it was well adapted to produce 
grain ? 

Ans. — I should say not, from its deficiency in moisture; 
this was evident from their being compelled to bring water 
from the creek for their kitchen and garden, as the season ad- 
vanced. 

Int. 16. — Whether or no the Company used other portions 
of land about the fort for grazing purposes ? 

Ans. — The whole country, from the Nisqually river back to 
East, was entirely open and free — extensive prairies, divided 
by narrow strips of wood. 

Int. 17. — What was the value of this prairie land ? 

Ans. — I should have been sorry to have given 6J cents per 



231 

acre ; beautiful to look at ; clay, gravelly soil ; the upper 
prairie. 

Int. 18. — Whether or no the Company claimed any distinct 
portion of this prairie land besides that you have already de- 
scribed as enclosed ? 

(Question objected to.) 

Ans. — I think they did not; I never heard of any. Two 
(2) missionaries and their families established themselves 
within three quarters ({) of a mile of the fort, on the borders 
of one of the prairies, with a view of settling there. 

Int. 19. — Did the Company object to your using land in 
that neighborhood for erecting buildings upon, or for cutting 
timber from ; and did they charge you anything for such use? 

Ans. — I never heard of any objections; if there were any, 
they were never intimated to me by any one whatever. I 
cleared about ten or twelve acres, I suppose, sawed the logs 
for plank for my houses, and used the wood for firewood for 
the squadron. 

Int. 20. — Whether you know of any map of the Company's 
claim, as Nisqually, having been made before or being made 
in the year 1841. 

Ans. — I know of none. 

Int. 21. — About what number of cattle were there at Nis- 
qually in 1841 ? 

Ans. — I should say there were less than fifty (50.) 

Int. 22. — What was the value of these cattle per head, and 
what particular opportunities did you have during this expe- 
dition forjudging of the value of cattle in this section? 

Ans. — The cattle were few in number, as is shown in the 
fact of their declining to sell all that belonged to the Com- 
pany. Dr. McLaughlin presented the crew with two (2) on 
the 4th of July. I sold cattle belonging to Mr. Slocomb 
[? Slacum] for ten (10) dollars per head to Dr. McLaughlin, 
in the Willamette valley, the price fixed upon them by Dr. 
McLaughlin. This was to close Mr. Slocomb's estate. 

Int. 23. — Whether you remember the creeks, Steilacoom 
and Sequalitchew, and whether there were any mills upon them 
when you saw them ? 



232 

Ans. — Steilacoom creek is about seven miles to the north ; 
I doubt whether any person but an Indian had ever been there 
before our visit. 

Int. 24. — What value would you put upon these creeks as 
water power ? 

Ans. — Don't consider the water power at all; if turned into 
them, shows that the country is deficient in streams. 

Int. 25. — Whether the country is deficient in streams. 

Ans. — Entirely so. 

Int. 26. — About how many oak trees were there per acre in 
the tract of land from the Nisqually river on the one side to 
the Puyallup river on the other, and back to the coast range 
of mountains from the Sound? 

Ans. — I should think there were about one to three acres. 

Int. 27. — What was the average value of an oak tree situ- 
ated in this tract, and suitable for building purposes? 

Ans. — Value was in cutting it down ; it then might be 
found valueless. 

Int. 28. — Whether or no you have any particular knowledge 
for estimating the value of timber in this section ? 

Ans. — From experience in procuring timber and spars for 
the squadron, I found a vast many of the trees defective ; 
when cut down, [they] were found useless for our purposes. 

Int. 29. — Whether or no the most of the timber at Nisqually 
was far back from the Sound ? 

Ans. — There were groves or strips of oaks which divided 
the open prairie on the Nisqually Plain, but the great body 
of dense forest rose from the foot of the mountains up their 
sides. 

Int. 30. — Whether you made a map of the country about 
Nisqually ? If so, state whether you marked out or knew of 
any claim made by the Puget's Sound Company at this post. 

Ans. — I made a map of the country, but I never knew or 
heard of any claim whatever, except, perhaps, to the land 
occupied by the buildings and under cultivation. 

Int. 31. — Are you acquainted with the post or station occu- 
pied by the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, and known 
as the Cowlitz Farms ? 



233 

Ans. — I am, as far as two visits to the place would enable 
me to be so ; perhaps one day at each time. 

Int. 32. — What is its situation ? 

Ans. — It is situated on the right bankof the Cowlitz river, 
on the bank (200) two hundred feet high, and comprises an 
area of about a square mile. 

Int. 33. — What buildings had been erected there by the 
Company ? 

Ans. — There were various buildings, consisting of dwelling- 
houses and barns. 

Int. 34. — What would you estimate the cost of all these 
buildings to have been ? 

Ans. — I suppose something about three thousand ($3,000) 
dollars. 

Int. 35. — About how much land was under cultivation ? 

Ans. — About six hundred (600) acres. 

Int. 36. — What was the character of this land, and how 
valuable was it per acre ? 

Ans. — Its yield was about ten bushels of wheat to the acre. 
The crop that I saw on the ground, I was told, yielded about 
twelve. Value about three (3) dollars per acre, judging from 
this yield. 

Int. 37. — What number of cattle and sheep should you esti- 
mate the Company to have had at Cowlitz ? 

Ans. — None but those for agricultural purposes that I saw 
then ; no herds of cattle. When I was there in the dry 
season, I saw them cutting nutritious flags from across the 
river ; low grounds. 

Int. 38. — What kind of boundaries were there to this land 
which you have described as containing a square mile? 

Ans. — Rail and hurdle-fences ; outside of the fence were 
small patches of ground cultivated by the settlers, some dis- 
tance from the fence. 

Int. 39. — How was Cowlitz situated as regards access from 
Puget's Sound or from the Columbia river? 

Ans. — From Puget's Sound, almost impracticable. By the 
Cowlitz, some three months during a freshet it was navigable 
for batteaux. 



234 

Int. 40. — Do you know anything of the formation and pur- 
poses of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company? If so, 
state what you know. 

Ans. — I do. My knowledge is derived from Dr. McLough- 
lin, Mr. Ogden, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Anderson, Captain McNeil, 
and, I think, Mr. Burney, and Mr. Forrest, superintendent of 
the Cowlitz Farms. 

(The statement of any knowledge derived from the persons 
mentioned, or any statements made to the witness by these 
persons, objected to as incompetent and irrelevant.) 

The charter of the Hudson's Bay Company did not permit 
them to engage in anything but in the trade of furs and pel- 
tries ; it was therefore found necessary to organize a new 
company under the title of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
Company, and various localities then in possession of the 
Hudson's Bay Company were assigned to the Puget's Sound 
Company, under articles of agreement to supply the Hudson's 
Bay Company's post with the requisite provisions. The nomi- 
nal capital of the Company was, I think, five hundred thou- 
sand pounds, (^£500,000,) to be exclusively taken by the officers 
and employes of the Hudson's Bay Company. The capital 
actualty paid in was somewhere about twenty thousand (20,000) 
pounds. The officers of the Puget's Sound Company were 
those belonging to the Hudson's Bay Company ; Dr. McLough- 
lin was their superintendent. The profits that were expected 
to accrue were held out as a reward for those who had rendered 
services in the Hudson's Bay Company. 

Int. 41. — Had the Puget's Sound Company, at that time, 
declared any dividend? 

Ans. — I was informed they had not. 

Cross- Exa mination. 

Int. 1. — Is all your knowledge of the Company posts de- 
rived from your visits to them at the times you have mentioned 
in the year 1841 ? 

Ans. — It is from myself and officers. 

Int. 2. — In the answers which you have made, has your 



235 

memory been assisted by any reference whatever to the report, 
which you state was written by you, of an exploring expe- 
dition ? 

Ans. — No. 

Int. 3. — Have you seen the report made by you within the 
last few days, and, have you examined it at all, in the parts 
which have reference to the lands and farms and buildings of 
the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company? 

Ans. — I have seen it, in volumes, in the last few days ; natu- 
rally spoken of them in my family. I had not examined it 
with reference to that part ; I made a cursory view of it. 

Int. 4. — How long after the time you saw these posts of the 
Company was this report written ? 

Ans. — I kept a diary during the expedition, of every day's 
proceedings and occurrences throughout the whole time em- 
braced in the publication, written daily, before I retired to 
rest. It had been my practice long before the expedition, and 
has been ever since. 

Int. 5. — Does this report embody a correct and accurate 
transcript of the substance of your diary, made by you in 
reference to the lands, farms, buildings, and stock of the 
Puget's Sound Agricultural Company ? 

Ans. — Of my own diary, as well as the official reports of 
the officers and scientific corps under my orders and attached 
to the expedition. 

Int. 6. — Was this statement made by you in your report, 
about the station at Nisqually, as follows : ' ; Near by were to 
be seen fine fields of grain, large barns and sheep-folds, agri- 
cultural implements, and workmen with cattle engaged in the 
various employments of husbandry?" If so, what portion 
of this statement is of your own personal knowledge, and 
what portion is derived from official reports ? 

Ans. — It is in my report. It is all my own knowledge, but 
it must be taken comparatively of my own situation and that 
of country. Large barns would be comparative, as to the 
size, in a new country, and the number of cattle would be so 
considered, although they did not embrace more than fifty 
(50) head. 



236 

Int. 1. — Did you make use of this language in your report, 
in speaking of the garden at Fort Nisqually : " Here I saw 
peas a foot high, strawberries and gooseberries in full bloom, 
and some of the former nearly ripe, with salad that had gone 
to seed three feet high, and very large and thrifty?" 

Ans. — Yes, sir. 

Int. 8. — Did you make use of this language in your report, 
speaking of the fort, and how much of it was derived from 
your own personal knowledge : "It is constructed of pickets, 
enclosing the space, about two hundred (200) feet square, with 
four (4) corner bastions ; within this enclosure are the agent's 
stores and about half a dozen houses, built of logs and roofed 
with bark ? 

Arts. — I made use of this language in my report ; it is my 
personal knowledge. 

Int. 9. — In speaking of the Company's establishment at 
Nisqually, did you make use in your report of this language, 
and how much of it is of your personal knowledge : " In con- 
nection with the Company's establishment at Nisqually they 
have a large dairy, several hundred head of cattle, and among 
them seventy (70) milch cows. They have also large crops of 
wheat, peas, and oats?" 

Ans. — I made use of this language; that is derived from 
Mr. Anderson, the superintendent. 

Int. 10. — Did you not see a dairy at or near the Company's 
establishment ? 

Ans. — No, sir. 

Int. 11. — You have stated in your examination-in-chief that 
the cattle were few in number, and less than fifty, (50.) In 
making this answer, do you wish to be understood as saying 
that there were not more than fifty (50) cattle belonging to the 
Company at Nisqually, or that you yourself only saw fifty, (50) ? 

Ans. — I wish to be understood as saying that I only saw 
fifty (50), and of my own knowledge. In the part of the 
report referred to, in interrogatory 9, I gave the number de- 
rived from others, good authority, as I believe, but I deemed 
it somewhat exaggerated, for I saw no force large enough to 
take care of and milk so many cows. 



237 

Int. 12. — You have stated in answer to interrogatory 13 
that there was a field of fifteen (15) or twenty (20) acres of 
wheat or some other grain. Do you wish to be understood as 
saying that there were not other fields in which were large 
crops of wheat, peas, and oats, or only that this field was the 
only one you saw near the fort and garden? 

Ans. — It was the only one I saw, nor did I hear of any 
other. 

Int. 13. — Have you made use in your report of this language : 
"It is also their intention, when they shall have succeeded in 
breeding a sufficient stock of cattle and sheep, to export hides, 
horns, tallow, and wool to England in the return ships. In 
this way it may readily be perceived that they will be en- 
abled to drive a profitable trade, particularly when it is con- 
sidered how little care the cattle require in this Territory, in 
consequence of the grass and natural hay which the soil 
affords at seasons?" If so, are you now of the same opinion 
as to the profitable trade which you have expressed? 

Ans. — I am not of the same opinion now, as cultivation 
destroys the natural grasses. 

Int. 14. — In the same report, did you make use of this lan- 
guage : " These operations are conducted by [a] farmer and 
dairyman brought from England?" If so, did you see this 
farmer and dairyman, or either of them ? 

Ans. — I made use of this language. That these persons 
were there, I learned from Mr. Anderson. 

Int. 15. — In the report, have you made use of this language : 
" A few Indians are engaged in attending the flocks ? " If so, 
did you see these Indians thus engaged ? 

Ans. — -That information is likewise obtained from Mr. 
Anderson. 

Int. 16. — In the report, did you make use of this language: 
" A large supply of milk was also sent to us daily from the 
dairy, and many other little kindnesses and attentions were re- 
ceived?" If so, do you wish now to make the same state- 
ment ? 

Ans. — I made use of this language. The supply of milk 
was two (2) pails full, I think, which was a large supply for 



238 

myself and officers. I presume it came from the dairy. The 
other little kindnesses were cranberries, gooseberries, and let- 
tuce. 

Int. 17. — Were you at Nisqually during the time of harvest ? 

Ans. — I think I must have been. 

Int. 18. — Did you not receive from the officers of the Pu- 
get's Sound Agricultural Company all the attention in their 
power; and did they not afford you every facility that they 
could in carrying out the objects of your expedition? 

Ans. — For the first week, I did not. I understood from the 
gentlemen that they were precluded from giving me aid until 
they received instructions from Vancouver. Afterwards, in 
arranging my traveling parties, procuring horses from the 
Indians, and giving us models and instructions for making 
saddles for the horses, they were very kind. As regards the 
surveying duties, they afforded me no assistance. 

Int. 19. — Was there any government in the country when 
you were there ? 

Ans. — There was none, nor did I look for any. 

Int. 20. — How many vessels, and how large a force of men, 
had you while at Nisqually ? 

Ans. — A sloop-of-war and a brig-of-war, with two (2) 
launches and some ten (10) boats. The crews comprised 
upwards of three hundred (300) men. 

Int. 21. — Did you ever ask the officers of the Company at 
Nisqually to point out the boundaries of their claim, or did 
you ever have any conversation with them in reference to it ? 

Ans. — I never asked the officers of the Company relative 
to any claim they had. I know and believe they had none. I 
had frequent conversation with the officers of the Company 
upon the subject of my explorations and the tenure of the 
country. In all of them they never gave me any intimation 
relative to any rights they possessed in the country. 

Int. 22. — Did you ask their leave to occupy and use the 
landing and road, or to cut timber? 

Ans. — Never. 

Int. 23. — How far from Nisqually Plains was it to the places 
where you sold the cattle of the deceased Mr. Slocomb [Sla- 



239 

cum] for ten ($10) dollars per head, and was the communica- 
tion between the two places easy and secure ? 

Ans. — The cattle were at Willamette Valley, where the 
most active operations, at that time, were going on ; and I 
presume the cattle were more valuable there than at any dis- 
tant post. The distance from Willamette Valley to Nisqually 
may be one hundred and fifty (150) miles. 

Int. 24. — In answer to interrogatory 30, you stated you 
made a map of the country about Nisqually ; was that map the 
result of your own observations, or was it made from the ex- 
amination of your officers? 

Ans. — Of course it was made by the examinations of myself 
and of my officers, under my directions. 

Int. 25. — Was not the map you speak of a general map of 
the whole country, within one hundred (100) or more miles of 
the coast? 

Ans. — It extended back to the Blue Mountains, nearly 
three hundred (300) miles from the coast. The map was a 
general map, made up of particular maps. 

Int. 26. — Did you ever cross Steilacoom Creek on the 
plains going to the eastward ? 

Ans. — I may have frequently done so without knowing its 
name. 

Int. 27. — Do you recollect crossing over any creeks on the 
Nisqually Plains, except the creek near your encampment? 

Ans. — I do. 

Int. 28. — Did you see a lake or lakes on these plains? 

Ans. — I saw some small ponds. 

Int. 29. — How long did you stop at the Cowlitz Farm the 
first time you visited it ; at what time of the day did you 
arrive, and at what time did you leave ? 

Ans. — I was there nine or ten hours during daylight; I 
arrived about 9 a. in., and left about 7 p. m., the same day. 

Int. 30. — Is this statement as to your being there in the 
day, and the time you were there at your first visit, from your 
distinct recollection, or is it derived from an examination just 
made by you of your report? 

Ans. — It is derived from my distinct recollection, corrobo- 
17 P 



240 

rated by the astronomical observations I took while I was 
there, for both longitude and latitude. 

Int. 31. — Your statement then is, that the examination of 
the report has not refreshed your memory ? 

Ans. — It will be very difficult to decide ; but reading the 
paragraph confirms me in my recollection, having recalled the 
observations made, and the result of them, in latitude and 
longitude. 

Int. 32. — Did you, in your report, make use, in reference to 
the Cowlitz Farm, of this language: "At this farm the Com- 
pany have a large dairy ; large numbers of cattle were being 
brought in for the night." If so, what portion of the state- 
ment is of your own personal knowledge ? 

Ans. — There are two distinct paragraphs of my report. 
The first, about the dairy, is derived from Mr. Forrest, the 
superintendent ; the second is from a view of some fifty or 
sixty cattle coming in, as we passed towards the landing, 
about one mile distant below the farm. The reason for driv- 
ing them in, which, derived from Plumondon, follows in the 
report ; these may have been those I saw before in the early 
part of the day. 

Int. 33. — Were these the only cattle you saw at Cowlitz at 
either visit ? 

Ans. — I recollect seeing no other cattle in a body. 

Int. 34. — Were you at the Cowlitz at the time the wheat 
was cut, or when it was threshed ? 

Ans. — I don't think I was. 

Int. 35. — Do you consider yourself competent, from seeing 
wheat growing in the field, to estimate the number of bushels 
produced to the acre ? 

Ans. — I think I do. 

Int. 36. — Did you, at the time, estimate the amount of 
bushels to the acre of the wheat you saw growing at Cowlitz 
Farm ? 

Ans. — Mr. Forrest told me that the field would yield ten 
bushels of wheat to the acre ; my estimate, from the appear- 
ance of the crop, was much less. 

Int. 3T. — Did any one else tell you that the crop yielded 
more than ten bushels to the acre ? 



241 

Arts. — Both Mr. Drayton and Mr. Walden, [? Waldron] of 
my party, who were associated with me, thought less favorably 
of the crop than I did. I see in a note to my report now before 
me, that the crop of 1841, at the end of the season, produced 
seventhousand (7,000) bushels. I presume I got this from Mr. 
Douglas or Mr. McLoughlin, or some one in high authority. 

Int. 38. — In your report, have you used this language in 
reference to the Cowlitz Farm: " The grounds appear well 
prepared, and were covered with a luxuriant crop of wheat?" 

Ans. — Yes, sir ; I did use it in writing of the landscape 
view. 

Int. 39. — In this report, did you make use of this language 
in speaking of the Cowlitz Farm; "With several large gran- 
aries, a large farm-house, and numerous out-buildings to ac- 
commodate the daily workmen, cattle, et cetera? ". If so, how 
much of the statement is derived from your personal obser- 
vation ? 

Ans. — I used the language in the report. I say now, that in 
the word " large," which was used relative to the new country, 
elsewhere, in a settled community, they might be deemed small 
and insignificant. 

Int. 40. — In your report, did you make use of this lan- 
guage: "The superintendent's dwelling is large, and built of 
well-hewn logs, with workmen's houses, et cetera; it forms 
quite a village?" If so, is that statement all derived from 
your personal knowledge ? 

Ans. — It is my own personal knowledge. I made use of the* 
language, " The degree of progress resembled that of a set- 
tlement of several years' standing in our Western States, with 
the exception, however, of the remains of the conquered forest. 
Here the ground was ready for the plough, and nature seems 
as it were to invite the husbandman to his labors." 

Int. 41. — At your second visit to the Cowlitz Farm, how 
long did you remain there, what time did you arrive, and at 
what time did you leave? 

Ans. — I must have remained there about twenty-four hours. 
I arrived on one morning, and departed the next. 



242 . 



Re-Examination. 

Int. 1. — Whether or no you visited any Mission station near 
the fort at Nisqually ? If so, state what you saw. 

Ans. — I visited the station of Mr. Richmond and Mr. Wil- 
son, On the borders of the prairie, three-quarters of a mile 
east of Fort Nisqually, there were two comfortable log cabins, 
in which they had located. 

Int. 2. — Whether or no you used this language in your re- 
port in regard to the soil : "This is composed of a light brown 
earth, intermixed with a large portion of gravel and stones. 
It requires an abundance of rain to bring a crop to perfec- 
tion;" and whether or no you made this of your own knowl- 
edge, and now remember the same to be as accurate and true ? 

Ans. — I made use of this language. I made my own obser- 
vations, and know it to be accurate and true. 

(The above question and answer thereto are objected to, as 
incompetent and irrelevant.) 

Int. 3. — Do you think that cattle could swim across the 
Columbia river when it is low? 

Ans. — Yes. 

(Question and answer objected to, as incompetent and irrel- 
evant.) 

Cross- Examination Resumed. 

Int. 1. — How much rain, if any, fell during your stay at 
Nisqually ? 

Ans. — I think there was very little rain during our visit 
there. 

Int. 2. — Were not the trees which you cut down to make 
spars for the Vincennes, and which proved to be more or less 
defective, cut at Fort Discovery, a harbor on the Straits of 
Fuca? 

Ans. — Many of them were. 

Int. 3. — Did you not, by letter from Fort Discovery, request 
the officers of the Company to send you a pilot? And were 



24S 

you joined at Pilot's Cove by the first mate of the Hudson's 
Bay Company's steamer, sent down to pilot up your ship? 

Ans. — I wrote a note, and sent it up by an Indian, asking for 
a pilot. I therefore proceeded in the Vincennes up the Ad- 
miralty Inlet some sixty or seventy miles, where I anchored 
for the night at Pilot's Cove for the tide. Early the next 
morning the man joined me, who reported that he had come 
down to act as pilot. From this circumstance I called the 
place Pilot's Cove. In conversation with him I soon found 
that he was ignorant of a pilot's duties. 

Int. 4. — Have you not stated, in speaking of your arrival 
at Nisqually and anchoring there, "That twelve miles more 
brought us to the anchorage off Nisqually, where both vessels 
dropped their anchors about 8 o'clock. Here we found an 
English steamer undergoing repairs. Soon after we anchored 
I had the pleasure of a visit from Mr. Anderson, who is in 
charge of the fort, and Capt. McNeil. They gave me a warm 
welcome, and offered me every assistance in their power to 
aid me in my operations?" 

Ans. — -That is a correct extract from my report; but as I 
imagine it may have been misunderstood, I will add a few 
words in explanation. From Mr. Anderson I learned that the 
receipt of my note by the Indian created a great surprise; 
and from the Indian's description they thought a large mili- 
tary expedition had arrived in their waters. They had great 
hesitancy about sending me a pilot, and forthwith dispatched 
messengers to Vancouver to know what their course of action 
should be. We were nearly a week from Fort Discovery in 
reaching Puget's Sound. Mr. Anderson and Capt. McNeil 
determined to send the mate of the steamer to Fort Discovery 
on their own responsibility. Told me that they thought that 
my ship would not move from there. I was half way up the 
Sound when he met me. Capt. McNeil admitted to me that 
he was little of a pilot; and I am well satisfied now if he had 
had the ship in charge she would have been wrecked in pass- 
ing through the narrows. Personally, these gentlemen ex- 
tended to me all the civilities I could wish for or expected. 
But they distinctly told me they had to await their orders 



244 

from Vancouver. The messenger arrived the day after their 
interview. 

Int. 5. — Was there not, at the time of your arrival at Nis- 
qually, a well-constructed road, of easy ascent, going up the 
hill-side at the landing? 

Arts. — There was. I never used it; but I made a better 
one to my own encampment. 

Int. 6. — Have you not, in reference to the establishment of 
an observatory, made this statement: "A suitable site was 
found on the top of the hill within hail of the ship. Here 
the instruments and tocks [? books] were landed, and put 
up in a small clearing, whence the trees had been cut in order 
to supply the steamer with fuel?" 

Ans. — I have, sir, in my official report. The place is not 
near the road nor the landing. 

Int. 7. — Did not Mr. Anderson, on the 13th of May, and 
within two or three days of your arrival at Nisqually, present 
you with two bullocks for the crews, and a quantity of vege- 
tables? 

Ans. — He did; it is so stated in my report. 

Int. 8. — Was not the ox which was barbecued on the 5th of 
July sold to you by the Company's agent? 

Ans. — Yes. The present of two oxen I looked upon as 
something like a peace offering, when they had become satis- 
fied that our object was not warlike, and the gift had no 
doubt emanated from Vancouver. 

Int. 9. — Did Dr. McLoughlin arrive at Nisqually before the 
morning of the day after the celebration, the morning of the 
6th? 

Ans. — He did not arrive before the morning of the 6th, as 
he was detained on the way. 

Int. 10. — Have you not stated, in reference to the farm at 
Nisqually, that "on this farm there were about two hundred 
acres of land under cultivation, which I was informed would 
yield (15) fifteen bushels of wheat to the acre?" 

Ans. — I have made this statement in my report. The (15) 
fifteen bushels to the acre refers to fifteen or twenty acres or 
the acres that were sown in wheat. The rest was being pre- 
pared for cultivation. 



245 

Int. 11. — Have you not, in speaking of the future prospects 
of the Puget's Sound Company, made use of this language: 
"[In] the event, however, of the country becoming the abode of 
a civilized community, the farms and other land possessed by 
this Company must become very valuable, as the posts occupy 
all the points most favorably situated for trade, and the agri- 
cultural establishments have been placed in the best position 
for farming operations?" 

Ans. — I have made this statement. It is an extract from 
my published report. 

Charles Wilkes. 



City of Charlotte, 1 

County of Mecklenburg, State of North Carolina. J 

I, Charles Overman, a justice of the peace in and for the 
county and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the fore- 
going deposition, hereto annexed, of Rear Admiral Charles 
Wilkes, United States Navy, a witness produced by and on 
behalf of the United States of America, in defence to the 
claims made against the United States by the Puget's Sound 
Agricultural Company before the British and American Joint 
Commission for the adjustment of the same, was taken before 
me, at the office of the First National Bank of Charlotte, in 
the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, and reduced to writing, 
under my direction, and in my personal presence, by P. P. 
Zimmerman, a person agreed upon by Chas. C. Beaman, Jr., 
Esq., attorney for the United States, and Edward Lander, 
Esq., attorney for said Company, beginning on the 31st day of 
December, A. D. 1866, continuing from day to day, until 4th 
day of January, 1867, when it was signed according to the 
date appended to said deposition. 

I further certify that said deposition was taken before me, 
in pursuance of the written agreement, hereto annexed, be- 
tween said Chas. C. Beaman, Jr., Esq., and Edward Lander, 
Esq. 

I further certify that to said witness, before his examina- 
tion, I administered the following oath : 



246 

" You swear that the evidence which you shall give in the 
matter of the claim of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Com- 
pany against the United States of America shall be the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God." 

That after the same was reduced to writing, the deposition 
was carefully read to, and then signed by said witness. 

I further certify that Edward Lander, Esq., attorney for 
said Company, was personally present during the examination 
and cross-examination of said witness, and the reading and 
signing of his deposition. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand at said 
office, the 4th day of January, A. D. 1867. 

Charles Overman, J. P. 



City op. Charlotte, \ 

County of Mecklenburg, State of North Carolina, j 

Puget's Sound Company in the Matter against the United 
States in the above cause. 
It is agreed by the undersigned that the testimony of Rear 
Admiral Wilkes, United States Navy, a witness produced by 
and on behalf of the United States of America, in defence to 
the claims made against the United States by the Puget's 
Sound Agricultural Company before the British and American 
Joint Commission for the adjustment of the same, shall be 
taken before Charles Overman, a justice of the peace for and 
in the county and State aforesaid, this 31st day of December, 
A. D. 1866. 

Edward Lander, 
Of Counsel for Hudson's Bay Company* 

Charles C. Beaman, Jr.. 
Attorney for the United States. 



BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION 



ON THE 



HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICUL- 
TURAL COMPANIES' CLAIMS. 



In the matter of the Claim of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
Company against the United States. 

Deposition of Simpson P. Moses, taken at the request and in 
behalf of the United States, by agreement between C. C. 
Beaman, on behalf of the United States, and Edward 
Lander, on behalf of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
Company. 

Testimony of Simpson P. Moses. 

Int. 1. — What is your name, place of residence, and pres- 
ent occupation ? 

Ans. — Simpson P. Moses ; Washington city, D. C. ; am a 
lawyer by profession. 

Int. 2. — Have you resided in Washington Territory ; if 
yea, when, where, and how long? 

Ans. — I have, at Olympia, the now capital of Washington 
Territory, from the 10th November, 1851, to middle of Au- 
gust, 1856. 

Int. 3.- — How were you employed, or what office did you 
hold while at Olympia ? 

Ans. — I was the United States collector of customs for the 
district of Puget's Sound, of which district Olympia was then 
the port of entry. This office I held from November, 1851, 
to 27th September, 1853. 



248 

Int. 4. — Are you acquainted with the tract of land in Wash- 
ington Territory called the Nisqually Plains ? 

Arts. — I have been to Fort Nisqually several times, and 
have rode over the plains several times. 

Int. 5. — What was the character of the post at Fort Nis- 
qually ? 

Ans. — Within the picket enclosure, about one hundred feet 
square or more, there was a very comfortable residence, occu- 
pied by the gentleman in charge, Dr. Tolmie. I remember a 
ware-house ; it was a log building ; it is adapted to contain 
one year's supply for their trade. There were some smaller 
buildings, occupied by the employes; also an old building 
used for storing hides and wool for shipment. 

Int. 6. — To what time does your description of the build- 
ings at Nisqually refer, and what would you estimate the cost 
and value of all th§se buildings to have been ? 

Ans. — The summer of 1853. There was great difference in 
the age of the buildings; while some were crumbling with de- 
cay, others were in pretty good order. I think the original 
cost of all the buildings, including the picket, did not exceed 
$10,000. The buildings, at the time I saw them, would, I 
think, have been worth to any one who needed them $3,000. 

Int. 7. — What was the character of the soil about Nis- 
qually ? 

Ans. — It was very inferior, gravelly, and well exhausted. 
The growth of sorrel seemed to have destroyed the fertility of 
the land. 

Int. 8. — What would you estimate to have been the value 
per acre of the land at Nisqually? 

Ans. — I should consider the value of the Company's claim, 
regarding part of it as fertile and the other part as sterile, at 
$1 per acre. The value of these lands fluctuated with the 
hopes or disappointments of increased population. The value 
I have given to the lands around Nisqually is the average 
of different years. 

Int. 9. — What would you estimate to have been the number 
of oak trees per acre on the Company's claim around Nis- 
qually ? 



249 

Ans. — Liberal to say two trees to an acre. 

Int. 10. — What was the character of these trees, and what 
were they worth, considering their position ? 

Ans. — The quality of the oak through that region is very in- 
ferior, scrubby ; many of what I called oak trees would not be 
considered trees of any value in an oak country. These trees 
were of no value, except where knees might be obtained for 
ship-timber. Most of the value of these trees was in the labor 
of cutting them and expense of hauling them. 

Int. 11. — In estimating the value of the land and the num- 
ber of trees on the land claimed by the Company at Nis- 
qually, are your answers applicable to the whole claim of the 
Company at Nisqually, as is marked out on the map now 
shown you? 

Ans. — They are. 

Int. 12. — Are you acquainted with the station of the Pu- 
get's Sound Agricultural Company known as the Cowlitz 
Farms? 

Ans. — To a limited degree only ; the lands are of good 
quality, excellent. Though I have heard of estimation of 
lands in that locality at from $10 to $20 per acre, yet I have 
never known or heard of any sales over $10 per acre. 

Int. 13. — State whether you know anything about the cattle 
claimed by the Company at Nisqually. 

Ans. — Yes ; the Company made shipments of cattle to Van- 
couver Island. They furnished beef two years or more to the 
town of Olympia. They also had contract for, and furnished 
beef to the forces at Fort Steilacoom. The cattle furnished at 
Olympia had to be shot like deer. The cattle had become wild, 
and were of inferior breed. During the very severe winter 
of 1852-3, the quality of the beef furnished was very poor. 
During this severe winter of 1852-3 the American settlers 
lost a large portion of their cattle. Hon. Gilmore Hays and 
his associates, American settlers, had a large number of cattle, 
and they lost nearly all of them. They lost $40,000 worth of 
cattle. As they took more care of their cattle than the Com- 
pany did of theirs, the Company must have sustained a severe 
loss in cattle that winter. The snow was two feet two inches 
deep for several weeks. 



250 

Int. 14. — State whether or no the cattle sent by the Com- 
pany to Vancouver's Island were raised by the Company. 

Ans. — They were, to a great extent ; but Dr. Tolmie, the 
officer in charge for the Company at Nisqually, purchased of 
the American settlers their improved stock of cattle, and 
shipped them also to Vancouver's Island. The cattle of their 
own raising, shipped by the Company, were for consumption, 
and not for breeding. 

Int. 15. — State whether or no the Puget's Sound Agricul- 
tural Company used Steilacoom or Nisqually as a harbor. 

Ans. — They used Nisqually. 

Int. 16. — What do you know of the various prices which have 
been asked and obtained for lands in Washington Territory? 

Ans. — There were' no perfected titles in the American set- 
tlers until about 1855. The claimants of land held under the 
donation act, which required a five years' residence, many of 
them after residing on their lands some time, and spending all 
their earnings on the improvements, sold for a very much less 
sum than they had expended in the improvements. 

Int. 17. — State whether or no lands were held at high prices 
at the time you were on the Pacific coast; and whether or no 
they have since been sold for a much less price. 

Ans. — The depreciation of the price of lands has been very 
great. The population of the country has not increased. 

Int. 18. — State whether or no you were ever acquainted with 
any lands owned by R. M. Walker, in Thurston county, Wash- 
ington Territory. If so, state whether or not parts of that were 
more valuable than average lands in the Territory, and why. 

Ans. — The lands owned by R. M. Walker were on the main 
route of travel, were near the saw-mills, and were also about 
one mile from Olympia, the capital of the Territory, and they 
were well timbered with fir, and cedar. 

Simpson P. Moses. 

Examination Resumed. 

Int. 19. — Whether or not you know one William B. Bolton, 
a witness examined in behalf of the Puget's Sound Agricul- 



251 

tural Company against the United States, a resident of Pierce 
county, Washington Territory, who describes himself in his 
direct-examination on behalf of the Company as a "ship- 
wright," and having resided in Pierce county from 1850 to 
1859. 

Ans. — I do know said "William B. Bolton. 

Int. 20. — Whether or not you are acquainted with said Bol- 
ton's claim below Steilacoom. 

Ans. — Yes, I am acquainted with the fact that he was the 
occupant of a land-claim below Steilacoom. 

Int. 21. — Whether or no there were any three acres of 
ground, or any thirty acres, in any one section of the land oc- 
cupied by Bolton, or any other land upon the plain between 
the Nisqually and Puyallup rivers, from which four hundred 
oak trees suitable for shipping could have been cut. 

(Mr. Lander objects to this question as incompetent.) 

Ans. — I Have visited Bolton's claim several times* From 
my observation and information I have no reason to believe 
that such a number of oak trees suitable for shipping purposes 
could have been cut from thirty acres of land in the locality 
referred to, or any where in that part of the country. 

Int. 22. — What do you know of the shipment of oak trees 
by said Bolton during the years 1852, 1853, and 1854 ? 

Ans. — My answer cannot come down later than September, 
1853, up to which time, commencing at November, 1851, when 
vessels were being loaded at, opposite, and in the vicinity of 
Steilacoom by contractors, to furnish cargoes of piles, and 
so forth, for shipment, Bolton had sub-contracts to furnish 
small numbers of ship-knees. 

(Mr. Lander objects to the above answer as incompetent.) 

Int. 23. — Can you estimate the number of knees shipped 
by said Bolton during the time above referred to by you, and 
do you know from what tract of country they were obtained? 

Ans. — I estimate about 200. They were obtained from 
land claimed by himself, and also from land of the L^nited 
States. 

Int. 24. — What would be the average height of the branches 
of the oak trees on the claim set up by the Puget's Sound 



252 

Agricultural Company, and what was the character of these 
trees; what were they used for, and what were they fit for? 

Ans. — Regarding every oak scrub as a tree, a liberal esti- 
mate would be six feet to the branches. These trees were 
stubbled, scrubby, and of the most inferior quality; and 
whilst it is possible to procure a few joints for ship-knees, I 
consider the oak trees to have had no other use except for 
fuel. In that part of the country oak had, as fuel, only a 
nominal value. 

Int. 25. — What do you know of Bolton's ship-yard, the 
vessels built by him, and what he proposed to use as knees ? 

Ans. — He had a ship-yard of limited capacity, adapted to 
such repairs as vessels might require, and to the building of 
small craft suitable for trade about the Sound. I remember 
his building two or three small vessels of the kind already 
alluded to in this answer. Bolton told me, in reply to my re- 
mark about the scarcity of oak, that from the roots of the fir 
trees he could get good enough ship-knees. 

(Mr. Lander objects to the statements made by Bolton as 
incompetent.) 

Int. 26. — Are you acquainted with what is known as Steila- 
coom creek? If so, say of what size it is. 

Ans. — Yes; I have been up Steilacoom creek different 
times. I think a dock might be made up there; but large 
vessels entering that dock at spring tide would have to wait 
for another spring tide to make their exit. But I consider 
there are better locations for docks in those waters. 

Int. 27. — How wide and how deep is Steilacoom creek at 
its mouth at an average tide ? 

Ans. — I should say about 100 feet wide. Ordinarily the 
creek is shallow. 

Int. 28. — What is the average rise of tide at Steilacoom? 

Ans. — My recollection is about 12 or 13 feet. 

Int. 29. — Are you acquainted with the land claim of M. 
Walker, situated in Thurston county, Washington Territory ? 

Ans. — I am. His land was along the main road about one 
mile from Olympia, the capital of the Territory, about half 
a mile from the sawmills at Newmarket, and was a timbered 
claim. 



253 

Int. 30. — What, considering the location of Walker's claim 
in regard to Olyrnpia and the sawmills, would he the value of 
the timber on an average acre of this claim? 

(Mr. Lander objects to this question as argumentative and 
leading.) 

Ans. — Though the country generally is so abundantly sup- 
plied with timber, I regard this claim as valuable, worth say 
$15 an acre, from its proximity to the two towns and saw- 
mills, which had exhausted to a great degree the other timber 
in reach at moderate expense of hauling. 

Int. 31. — What harbor or anchorage did the Hudson's Bay 
Company use for their vessels in Puget's So and? 

Ans. — The harbor of Nisqually, in front of their own road 
and warehouse. 

Int. 32. — Whether or no the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
Company had to your knowledge ever cut any road from 
Steilacoom down to the water? 

Ans. — I do not know of their ever having made such road. 

Int. 33. — What was the breed and character of the Com- 
pany's cattle on the plains? 

Ans. — The officers of the Company told me the cattle were 
of the Spanish breed. 

(Mr. Lander objects to the statements of the officers of the 
Company on this subject.) 

Int. 34. — What do you know of flocks of sheep sent by the 
Company or its officers from Nisqually? 

Ans. — The Company sent two or three large droves of sheep 
from Nisqually to Oregon for sale, and parties from California 
came to Nisqually and purchased sheep for the California 
market. The Company also sent a flock of sheep to San 
Juan island, and the impression at the time was that it was 
done to take possession of the island. 

Cross- Examin ation. 

Int. 1. — At the time you went to Fort Nisqually, did you go 
by boat or on horseback? 

Ans. — Sometimes by boat and sometimes on horseback. 



254 

Int. 2.— How many times were you there on horseback? 

Ans. — Half a dozen times. 

Int. 3. — At any one of those times that you were at the 
fort on horseback did you go beyond the fort, and if so, in 
what direction and where to? 

Ans. — North and west. I went to Fort Steilacoom, Judge 
Chambers' farm, and a place occupied by a man named 
Myers. 

Int. 4. — Are not Fort Steilacoom and Chambers' farm near 
together and both in a northern direction from Fort Nis- 
qually? 

Ans. — They are near together, and are both in a northern 
direction from Nisqually. 

Int. 5. — In what direction is the house of Myers from Fort 
Nisqually, and how far distant is it? 

Ans. — It is about east of north, and about the same dis- 
tance from Fort Nisqually as Fort Steilacoom is, according 
to my recollection. 

Int. 6. — How far to the northward of Fort Steilacoom or 
Chambers' farm have you been on horseback? 

Ans. — I presume I have not been beyond Chambers' farm 
to the northward. This was about the extent of my rambles 
on horseback. I have been by boat on the Sound to the mouth 
of the Puyallup, where I walked about in the timber. This 
point, by water, was about 12 or 14 miles from Bolton's place. 

Int. 7. — Where and on what part of the Company's claim, 
and in riding over what road, did you see the growth of sorrel 
you have spoken of? 

Ans. — Upon that portion of the Company's claim, stretch- 
ing out eastwardly and northeastwardly from Fort Nisqually, 
the land is red with it as far as the eye can reach. I saw this 
in riding along the main road from Olympia, via Fort Nis- 
qually, to Fort Steilacoom. 

Int. 8. — Did you observe the oak trees around Nisqually 
as you rode along the main road you have mentioned? 

Ans. — I think I observed all the oak trees from the crossing 
of the Nisqually river to as far north as I stated I have trav- 
eled on horseback. 



255 

Int. 9. — In averaging the size of oak trees seen by you, have 
you taken to account the oak brush or small trees along the side 
of the road between the Nisqually river and Fort Nisqually? 

Ans. — I have. 

Int. 10. — Have you ever walked upon the Nisqually Plains ; 
if so, to what distance, and on what occasion ? 

Ans. — I have walked upon the plains between Fort Nis- 
qually and the Nisqually landing, when I visited there by 
boat, on a number of occasions. 

Int. 11. — How far is the house of Mr. Bolton from Olympia? 

Ans.— About twenty-five or twenty-eight miles. 

Int. 12. — How far below the present town of Steilacoom ? 

Ans. — About three or four miles. 

Int. 18. — Did you not always go to the ship-yard of Bolton 
by boat ? 

Ans. — I did. 

Int. 14. — State how many times you visited that ship-yard 
by boat. 

Ans. — Three or four times. 

Int. 15. — The first time you visited there, where were you 
going, and on what business ? 

Ans. — In December, 1851 ; I was there on a visit to Steila- 
coom, to charter a vessel for the relief of shipwrecked persons 
on Queen Charlotte Islands. 

Int. 16. — What time of the day were you at Bolton's ship- 
yard and house? 

Ans. — It was late in the afternoon. 

Int. 17. — How long did you remain there ? 

Ans. — Not over one-half to three-quarters of an hour. 

Int. 18. — What were you doing while you were there ? 

Ans. — Conversing with Bolton. 

Int. 19. — When did you make your second visit to Bolton? 

Ans. — I cannot so definitely fix the time of this visit ; but, 
to the best of my recollection, it was in April, 1852. 

Int. 20. — Where were you going at that time, and on what 
business ? 

Ans. — On that trip I traveled about 500 miles in my open 
boat, on a general trip of reconnoisance through my district. 
18 P 



256 

Int. 21. — How long did you stop at Mr. Bolton's on this 
occasion ? 

Ans. — About half an hour. 

Int. 22. — When was the next occasion you visited Bolton's, 
and on what business ? 

Ans. — I can only answer this by saying that I was there on 
subsequent occasions, but cannot fix the times. 

Int. 23. — Can you state the time of day, or the length of 
time of your visits to Bolton's on the occasions subsequent to 
your two first visits ? 

Ans. — My visits to Mr. Bolton's place were generally early 
in the morning or late in the afternoon, on account of my 
making Steilacoom my stopping place for the night. 

Int. 24. — Did you find any horses at Bolton's to ride out 
into the country upon ? 

Ans. — I did not. 

Int. 25. — Is not the residence of Mr. Bolton immediately 
at the ship-yard, and in a small clearing made in large and 
thick fir woods ? 

Ans. — It is, according to my recollection. 

Int. 26. — Did you gb on foot through that timber until you 
came to the prairie on any occasion ; if so, on which of your 
visits was it ? 

Ans. — I never penetrated to the prairie from Bolton's 
landing, though I went some distance into the timber. 

Int. 27. — Are not the woods near Mr. Bolton's house, and 
along the shores of the Sound near it, of very heavy and 
thick fir trees ? 

Ans. — The growth along there is very dense, and of large 
firs, though there had been some thinning out of piles or 
ship's spars for shipment. 

Int. 28. — Were not the vessels employed in the lumber 
trade sailing generally under a coasting license? 

Ans. — The majority of them were. There were some trad- 
ing with foreign ports that were registered. 

Int. 29. — Do you not know that vessels sailing under a 
coasting license do not send manifests of their cargo to the 
collector of the district from which they sail? 



257 

Ans. — I know that they are required to exhibit their mani- 
fests, when called upon, to the officers of the customs, and that 
it was the usage to call for theui in my district. 

Int. 30. — Is your knowledge of the shipments of Mr. Bolton 
derived from the manifests called for by you or your officers? 
Ans. — I speak of the shipments of oak made by various 
persons, but furnished by Bolton, my information being de- 
rived from the manifests. 

(Mr. Lander objects to this as not responsive to the ques- 
tion.) 

Int. 31. — Had piles, ship-knees, or oak timbers been pur- 
chased of Mr. Bolton for shipment from the district, and de- 
livered by him, would not the manifests show these articles in 
the name of the purchaser and shipper ? 

Ans. — They would appear in the name of the shipper. 
Most, if not all the oak furnished to shippers in that locality 
was by Bolton. 

Int. 32. — Is not the difference between extreme high and 
extreme low water at Olympia about 18 feet? 

Ans. — I should think so. 

Int. 33. — Is not the claim of R. M. Walker separated from 
the main road by the claim of Mr. Crosby? 

Ans. — I always thought Walker's claim extended out to the 
road. 

Int. 34. — Was not the dwelling-house of Mr. Walker about 
one-fourth of a mile from the road ? 

Ans. — It is some distance from the road, but not, I think, 
so far. 

Int. 35. — Are there not between Mr. Walker's claim and 
Sylvester's claim, on the north half of which the town of 
Olympia is situated, the land claims of Offutt and of Wilson? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Cross-Examination Resumed, February 15, 1867. 

Int. 36. — What was the population of the place called 
Turn-water or Newmarket in 1854-'5? 
Ans. — I should suppose from 100 to 150. 



258 

Int. 37. — Are not the trees growing on the land around the 
town of Olympia and on Walker's claim generally of too large 
a size for the purpose of making what are called saw-logs? 

Ans. — I think not generally, though some of them are. 

Int. 38. — Do you know yourself what distance logs can be 
hauled on land to be paid for at the usual price at Puget's 
Sound? 

Ans. — From a half to one mile, anywhere in the vicinity of 
Turn-water mills. When I was there choice timber was then 
worth about $23 a thousand. This is stated according to the 
best of my recollection. 

Int. 39. — Is not the whole of the east half of Walker's claim 
more than a mile from any saw-mill? 

Ans. — I think his front line is about half a mile from the 
mill, or perhaps not so far. 

Int. 40. — What would it cost, from your experience, to 
clear an acre of timbered land on Walker's claim so as to 
render.it free from stumps? 

Ans. — Upon a claim so\ conveniently located the saw-logs 
and cord-wood have a marketable value. The destruction of 
the refuse and eradication of the stumps would then cost many 
times more than the land would sell for after being cleared. 
Much land is cultivated in that country without being entirely 
cleared. 

Int. 41. — Do you know of any, or did you yourself ever 
make, or cause to be made, any soundings at the mouth of 
Steilacoom creek? 

Ans. — I never did. 

Int. 42. — Have your statements with reference to the ship- 
ments of oak timber been confined to times anterior to Sep- 
tember, 1853? 

Ans. — They were. 

Cr oss-Examination Resumed, May 21th, 1867. 

Int. 1. — In your examination-in-chief you have spoken of the 
cattle of the Hon. Gilmore Hays that were killed by the severe 
weather during the winter season. Do you not know that these 



259 

cattle, at the time you speak of, were near the Dalles, in a 
section of the country separated from the Puget's Sound sec- 
tion by the Cascade Range of Mountains? 

Ans. — I referred to the Hon. Grilmore Hays' loss of cattle, 
which occurred at the Dalles in the winter of 1852 and 1853, 
as illustrative only. The deep snow, severe cold, and the 
privation were experienced as well all over the western portion 
of northern Oregon (now Washington Territory) as at the 
Dalles. 

Int. 2. — Were you at the Dalles yourself during that win- 
ter, or at the place where these cattle were kept? 

Ans. — I was not at the Dalles, nor where the cattle were 
kept ; but my information concerning the weather and suffer- 
ing there was obtained from Judge Hays himself, and others. 
I was at Fort Vancouver, and all along the route, from the 
mouth of the Cowlitz river to Olympia, which was not more 
than ten miles from the Nisqually river, which is the southern 
boundary of the land claimed by the Puget's Sound Agricul- 
tural Company, and along this route the snow was of the 
depth and remained on the ground as stated in my examina- 
tion-in-chief. The snow was two feet two inches deep, and laid 
several weeks. 

Int. 3. — Do you know, of your own knowledge, of any cat- 
tle dying on the Nisqually Plains that winter ? 

Ans. — I do not ; but the poor quality of the beef delivered 
at Olympia by the Puget's Sound Company bore every evi- 
dence of having perished. 

Simpson P. Moses. 



In the matter of the Claims of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
Company against the United States. 

Deposition of Charles T. Gardner, taken at the request and 
in behalf of the United States, by agreement between 
Caleb Cushing, on behalf of the United States, and Ed- 



260 

ward Lander, on behalf of the Puget's Sound Agricul- 
tural Company. 

Testimony of Charles T. Gardner. 

The said Charles T. Gardner being duly sworn, deposeth as 
follows : 

Int. 1. — Please to state your name, the profession to which 
you are educated, the employments you have filled, the places 
of those employments, and your present residence. 

Ans. — My name is Charles T. Gardner ; I was educated at 
Columbia college, D. C. ; I went into the coast survey in 1853, 
with Captain M. Woodhull, and we surveyed Sandy Hook; 
Homer Shoals, from there to Monomoy Point, end of Cape 
Cod ; the Elizabeth Island, York river, Maine. I left this ser- 
vice September 1, 1853; started from New York September 
20th, 1853, for Oregon, with my father ; went immediately to 
Oregon City ; I started in April, 1854, from Oregon City as a 
partner of Mr. Joseph Hunt, and as deputy surveyor; in 1858 
engaged in the boundary survey, and continued in that to 
1861 ; since then I have been in the army until November, 
1865, and am now at Washington City, a clerk in the Third 
Auditor's office, the Treasury Department. 

Int. 2. — Are you acquainted with the Cowlitz Farm, so- 
called, claimed and occupied by the Puget's Sound Agricul- 
tural Company? If yea, please to describe its extent and 
character, so far as you remember. 

Ans. — Yes, sir. I can't describe its extent. The land 
which had been cultivated was good. I know nothing about 
the difference between private land-claims at that point and 
that of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company. The lands 
which I refer to as being cultivated, were cultivated in wheat 
and corn, without being able to discriminate which part be- 
longed to the Company. 

Int. 3. — How many times have you visited that region of 
country, and at what periods? 

Ans. — I went there first in 1854, and remained there until 
Christmas day, 1854, when I went down the river Cowlitz. 



261 

Int. 4. — What market or markets has the tract of country 
called the Cowlitz Farms ? 

Ans. — Olympia, Washington Territory, and Portland, 
Oregon. 

Int. 5. — What is the condition of the roads for loaded 
wagons, between Cowlitz and Olympia, at different seasons of 
the year? 

Ans. — In the winter they are impassable for, I should 
think, at least seven or eight months. 

Int. 6. — In what conveyance did you descend the river 
Cowlitz ? 

Ans. — In an Indian canoe. I started from a point called 
Cowlitz Landing, and landed at Monticello ; stopped there all 
night ; went the next day to St. Helen's, on the Columbia 
river, and took the steamboat from St. Helen's to Portland, 
Oregon, up the Columbia and Willamette rivers. 

Int. 7. — Did you observe any falls or rapids in the Cowlitz 
river, between Cowlitz Landing and Monticello ? 

Ans. — Yes ; there is a landing on the river at a rapid 
nearly half way down. 

Int. 8. — Whetner or not those rapids constitute an obstacle 
to the convenient commercial navigation of the Cowlitz up or 
down the river ? 

Ans. — They constitute a serious obstacle to commercial 
navigation. 

Oross-Examination. 

Int. 1. — Did you travel over the road between the Cowlitz 
Farm and Olympia during the winter season ? If so, how 
often. 

Ans. — I have traveled over portions of the road frequently, 
but never went directly through but twice. 

Int. 2. — Is there not at all seasons of the year a good 
wagon road from the crossing of the Schookum Chuck to 
Olympia ? 

Ans. — There was, except a few crossings at Scatter Creek, 
and that in very high water. 



262 

Int. 3. — How far is it from the crossing of Schookum 
Chuck to the Cowlitz Farm ; and from the same crossing to 
Olympia ? 

Ans. — I think the whole distance is about fifty miles ; from 
the crossing to Cowlitz Farms was about twenty ; from the 
same crossing to Olympia about thirty miles. 

Int. 4. — Is not the portion of the road between the Cowlitz 
Farms and the Schookum Chuck, a road, for three fall months 
in the^year, which is used by farmers to wagon wheat to mill? 

Ans. — Parts of it ; but most of it is impassable during the 
fall for wagons. 

Int. 5. — At what dates did you cross over that portion of 
the road which you pronounce impassable for wagons in the 
months of September and October ? 

Ans. — I was passing over the road I have described as im- 
passable continually. 

Int. 6. — Is that portion of the road which you pronounce 
impassable the old road running through Saunders's Bottom, 
so-called, on the east bank of the river ? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int. 7. — Are your statements in referenced this road made 
from your experience of it while you were engaged in surveys 
in 1854? 

Ans. — Yes ; they were. 

Int. 8. — Do you know of a road on the opposite bank of the 
river, leading from north of the Schookum Chuck, near the 
crossing, to Cowlitz Farm, built by the Government of the 
United States ? If so, state as nearly as you can, when it was 
constructed. 

Ans. — I think they commenced in 1854 ; I know they were 
working on it then. 

Int. 9. — Have you any knowledge of the navigation of the 
Cowlitz river, nearly as far up as the Cowlitz landing, by a 
steamer constructed for the purpose of navigating it? 

Ans. — I have none; I have heard such project was enter- 
tained. 

Int. 10. — Did not the farmers on the Cowlitz Farm find a 



263 

market for their produce at a place called Rainier, opposite 
the mouth of the Cowlitz, on the south bank of the Colum- 
bia river ? 

Arts. — Yes; I made a mistake in naming St. Helen's; Rai- 
nier was the place I stopped at after leaving Monticello. 

Int. 11. — Is not the produce of the Cowlitz Farm easily 
taken down the Cowlitz river in canoes, either to Monticello 
or Rainier, when the river is at a proper stage ? 

Arts. — Yes ; it can. 

Int. 12. — Do you know what amount of freight the large 
baggage canoes of the Indians will carry ? 

Ans. — I do not. 

Chas. T. Gardner. 

January 30, 1867. 



In the matter of the Claim of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
Company against the United States. 

Deposition of General Benjamin Alvord, witness examined on 
behalf of the United States, by agreement between C. C. 
Beaman, counsel for the United States, and Edward Lan- 
der, counsel for the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company. 

Testimony of General Benjamin Alvord. 

Int. 1. — State your name, residence, and occupation. 

Ans. — Benjamin Alvord; residence, New York city; pay- 
master in the United States Army. 

Int. 2.— Have you ever visited Nisqually, a post of the Pu- 
get's Sound Agricultural Company ? 

Ans. — I have, often ; first in 1855, and frequently since as 
paymaster, en route to Fort Steilacoom. 

Int. 3. — What was the character of the buildings of this 
post? 

Ans. — A stockade, surrounded with pickets. On the left, 
as you entered the gate, a house occupied by the officer of the 



264 

Company in charge ; opposite, a store-house ; beyond that, 
another store-house, the lower story of which was used as a 
store ; opposite to this latter, a building occupied by the ser- 
vants of the Company. 

Int. 4. — Are you acquainted with the character of the lands 
around Nisqually? 

Ans. — I have traveled them a good deal on horseback. 

Int. 5. — What is their character ? 

Ans. — The soil is gravelly ; in arable tracts it was very thin 
and poor, covered with sorrel some seasons of the year ; four 
or five pretty lakes, surrounded with a few oaks; the ground 
very level; natural macadamized road-ways in every direc- 
tion ; some patches on the stream with a little more fertility. 

Int. 6. — What would be the average value per acre of a 
tract of land at Nisqually, extending along the shores of Pu- 
get's Sound from the Nisqually river on the one side, to the 
Puyallup river on the other, and back to the Coast Range of 
Mountains? 

Ans. — I don't think it is worth more than seventy-five cents 
an acre. 

Int. 7. — About what number of oak trees would there be per 
acre on the tract of land described in the previous question? 

Ans. — Not more than one to an acre; large tracts without 
any at all ; they were in clumps — small. 

Int. 8. — What was the character of these oak trees? 

Ans. — They were good for fuel ; could be put to little use in 
wagon-building or ship-building. 

Cross- Examination. 

Int. 1. — Is not your acquaintance of that tract of country 
known as the Nisqually Plains derived from your official 
visits to the fort at Steilacoom, as paymaster ? 

Ans. — Yes ; every four months. 

Int. 2. — Did you not, in going to that post, go through 
Olympia; and from there, by the road leading from Olympia 
by Fort Nisqually, to Fort Steilacoom? 



265 

Ans. — Generally that route; sometimes over the military 
road east of Olympia. 

Int. 3. — How far from the military post at Steilacoom are 
the lakes you have spoken of, and how often have you visited 
them? 

Ans. — A few miles. I visited them very often ; but made re- 
peated tours of payments to troops at Muckleshoot Prairie, on 
the White River, beyond the Puyallup, twenty miles east of 
Fort Steilacoom. 

Int. 4. — Is there not a direct traveled road from the fort 
at Steilacoom to the crossing of the Puyallup, upon the route 
to the Muckleshoot Prairie? 

Ans, — I went on horseback. There was a path, not deserv- 
ing the name of a road. 

Int. 5.— Is there not a well-defined trail, which you may 
call a path, which you followed on your way to the Muckle- 
shoot Prairie ? 

Ans. — I went by a horse-path, north of the military road ; 
returned by the military road, paying troops at two other 
block-houses, and thus had to traverse a large share of that 
country. 

Int. 6. — Have you, in your answer to the questions put to 
you in the examination-in-chief, described any portion of the 
Nisqually Plains, other than that seen by you when traveling 
on the routes you have described, and to and from the lakes 
you have mentioned? 

Ans. — I made frequent pleasure trips, as well as business 
trips, on horseback and in carriages. 
February 27, 1867. 

Cross- Examination Resumed this 28 February, 1867. 

Int. 7. — State how many pleasure trips you have made. 

Ans. — Several, every summer. 

Int. 8. — Did you, in any instance, go off the traveled road 
or path? If so, state how often, in what directions, and to 
what distances. 

Ans. — In the excursions on horseback with ladies and gen- 



266 

tlemen, we often left the roads and paths. It was an open 
prairie. 

Int. 9. — Can you give the names of any persons whose 
claims you visited or passed by in the pleasure rides you 
speak of? 

Ans. — There were two or three settlers north of Steilacoom; 
one by the name of Chambers, one at the post garden seven 
miles from Fort Steilacoom, and George Gibbs' place, east of 
the fort. I was not very familiar with their names, as I was 
not stationed at the post. 

Int. 10. — Is not the house of Mr. Chambers about a mile 
from Fort Steilacoom? 

Ans. — I think it was. 

Int. 11. — Did you ever visit a prairie called "Muck?" 

Ans. — I don't know. 

Int. 12. — Do you ever recollect visiting or being upon the 
claim of one Bolton ? 

Ans. — No. 

Int. 13. — Were not the post garden, the lakes, and Mr. 
Gibbs' claim the usual places to which these pleasure rides 
you speak of were directed ? 

Ans. — Yes. Sometimes we went further. 

Int. 14. — Has your observation of these plains been other 
than a general one, gained when riding or driving in the dif- 
ferent directions you have mentioned ? 

Ans. — The quality of the land there came under my obser- 
vation because the commanding officer at Fort Steilacoom had 
to go seven miles to establish a post garden. I used to ride 
with him, General Casey, exploring for some other place. 

Int. 15. — Is not this land you have spoken of as covered 
with sorrel, land lying near Fort Nisqually? 

Ans. — Near Fort Steilacoom and Nisqually both. 

Int. 16. — Do you know of any sale of lands on the Nis- 
qually Plains, or have you ever purchased any land there? 

Ans. — No. 

Benj. Alvoed, 
Paymaster and Brev. Brig. General U. S. Army. 

February 28th, 1867. 



267 



District of Columbia, 1 
County of Washington, j 

I, Samuel J. Huntington, Clerk of the United States Court 
of Claims, do hereby certify that the foregoing depositions 
hereto annexed of Simpson P. Moses, Charles T. Gardner, 
Benjamin Alvord, and the direct examination of Edward J. 
Allen ; witnesses produced by and on behalf of the United 
States in the matter of the claims of the Puget Sound Agri- 
cultural Company against the same, now pending before the 
British and American Joint Commission, for the adjustment 
of the same, were taken at the city of Washington, in the Dis- 
trict aforesaid, and reduced to writing under my direction, by 
a person agreed upon by Charles C. Beaman, Jr., Esq., attor- 
ney for the United States, and Edward Lander, Esq., attorney 
for said Company, beginning on the said 20th day of January 
and ending on said 28th day of February, 1867, according to 
the several dates appended to said depositions when they were 
signed respectively. 

I further certify that to each of said witnesses before his 
examination, I administered the following oath: 

"You swear that the evidence you shall give in the matter 
of the claim of the Pugets' Sound Agricultural Company 
against the United States of America, shall be the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God." 

I further certify that Charles C. Beaman, Jr., and Edward 
Lander, Esq., were personally present during the examination 
and cross-examination of all of said witnesses, and the reading 
and signing of their depositions. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and offi- 
cial seal this 26th day of June, A. D. 1867. 

[l. s.] SAM'L J. HUNTINGTON, 

Clerk Court of Claims. 



BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION 



HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICUL- 
TURAL COMPANIES' CLAIMS. 



In the matter of the Claims of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 

Company against the United States. 

Deposition of a witness (on behalf of the United States) sworn 
and examined in the City of Philadelphia, Eastern Dis- 
trict of Pennsylvania, before me, Charles Sergeant, Uni- 
ted States Commissioner in and for said Eastern District 
of Pennsylvania, by virtue of a verbal agreement made 
and entered into between C. C. Beaman, Esq., as Counsel 
for the United States, and Edward Lander, Esq., as Coun- 
sel for the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company. 

Testimony of George Davidson. 

Q-eorge Davidson being duly sworn, deposes and testifies as 
follows : 

Ques. 1. — What is your name, residence, and present occu- 
pation? 

Ans. — George Davidson ; Germantown, Philadelphia. I am 
Assistant United States. Coast Survey. 

Ques. 2. — Are you the same person that has already testified 
in the Hudson's Bay Company vs. The United States? 

Ans. — Yes, I am. 

Ques. 3. — Have you ever visited Puget's Sound ? , If so, 
state whether you are acquainted with Steilacoom creek. 

Ans. — I had charge of the astronomical, triangular, and 



269 

topographical work of all the waters of Washington Territory <, 
from the entrance to the Straits of Fuca, and am familiar 
with most o"f them as high as Steilacoom. I have worked and 
visited in the vicinity of Steilacoom in 1853, 1855, and 1857, 
and am acquainted with and have landed at the mouth of 
Steilacoom creek. 

Ques. 4. — Whether or no you have had any experience that 
would enable you to judge of the true value and proper loca- 
tion of a dry-dock ? 

Ans. — Having made naval architecture one of my studies? 
to a certain extent, in concert with my brother, Thomas 
Davidson, Jr., naval constructor in the United States Navy, 
and also investigated the properties of dry-docks and similar 
constructions, I think I am enabled to make a fair estimate 
of the importance of any specified location for the construc- 
tion of a dry-dock. 

Ques. 5. — ^Describe Steilacoom Creek, and state what you 
consider to be its suitability for a dry-dock. 

Ans. — My recollection of Steilacoom Creek is, that for 
about a third of a mile from the entrance it has a width be- 
tween the banks at high-water of about one hundred and fifty 
yards. That there is not a large supply of water in this 
creek, as I judged by the amount flowing out at low-water, 
where it was very narrow and shallow. That I commanded 
the United States brig Fauntleroy, drawing about ten feet of 
water, and should never have hazarded an attempt to get her 
in this creek at the highest tide by any appliances whatever. 
In fact, I would consider it totally impracticable to get a 
vessel drawing ten feet of water in there. As an engineer, I 
do not consider it practicable, without accurate surveys and 
a large amount of capital, to construct a dry-dock in the 
basin of this creek. I believe there are other localities on 
these waters much better suited for the purpose. 
Cross-examination waived. 

George Davidson, 



270 



United States of America, \ 
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. ] 

I, Charles Sergeant, United States Commissioner, duly 
appointed and commissioned by the Circuit Court of the 
United States in and for the Eastern District of Pennsylva- 
nia, do hereby certify that the foregoing deposition of Greorge 
Davidson was taken and reduced to writing by me in the 
presence of said witness ; and from his statements on the 
sixth day of May, 1867, at my office, No. 123 South Fifth 
street, Philadelphia, in pursuance of a verbal agreement 
made in my presence by C. C. Beaman, Esq., as counsel for 
the United States, and Edward Lander, Esq., as counsel for 
the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company. 

I further certify that to said witness, before his examina- 
tion, I administered the following oath: 

"You do swear that the evidence you are about to give in 
the matter of the claim of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
Company against the United States shall be the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God." 

I further certify that said deposition was by me carefully 
read to said witness, and then signed by him in my presence. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and 
j- -j official seal at Philadelphia, this seventh day of 
L " * J May, 1867. 

Charles Sergeant, 

TJ. S. Commissioner. 



BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION 



HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICUL- 
TURAL COMPANIES' CLAIMS. 



In the matter of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company 
against the United States. 

Deposition of a witness, (on behalf of the United States,) 
sworn and examined in the city of Philadelphia, eastern 
district of Pennsylvania, before me, Charles Sergeant, 
United States Commissioner in and for said Eastern 
District of Pennsylvania, by virtue of a verbal agreement 
made and entered into between C. C. Beaman, Esq., as 
counsel for the United States, and Edward Lander, Esq., 
counsel for the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company. 

Testimony op Maximilian Mogk. 

Maximilian Mogk, being duly sworn, deposes and testifies as 
follows : 

Int. 1. — What is your name and residence ? 

Ans. — My name is Maximilian Mogk; I reside 1,082, Ger- 
mantown Road, Philadelphia. 

Int. 2. — Were you ever at Fort Steilacoom, Washington 
Territory ? 

Ans. — Yes, sir. 

Int. 3. — In what years, and in what capacity ? 

Ans. — From 1855 to 1857. I was a soldier in the United 
States Army, company C, 4th infantry. I was at first private, 
afterwards corporal and sergeant; I was discharged as orderly 
sergeant in 1857. 
19 P 



272 

Int. 4. — Are you acquainted with the tract of land, as set 
forth on the map, entitled " Plan of the Puget's Sound Agri- 
cultural Company's Land Claim at Nisqually, Washington 
Territory," marked B, and hereafter to be annexed to your 
deposition? 

Arts. — I am ; I have been over the whole ground gunning, 
and know every inch of it as well as anybody can. I was 
engaged to keep the officers* mess in game, so I had a good 
chance to see the whole country. I have been out gunning 
nearly every day for a year at a time. I went both on foot 
and on horseback, and frequently a distance of from ten to 
fifteen miles from the fort. I have also been engaged to take 
charge of parties cutting wood for the fort. 

Int. 5. — Will you describe the general character of the land 
embraced in the map marked B ? 

Ans. — The general character of the land is gravelly, without 
any soil on it. Useful for cultivation except on the low bot- 
toms. These bottom lands were small in extent and far apart. 
The land was so gravelly it never made any mud. You could 
ride anywhere. It would rain for four weeks without making 
any mud. The grass was very clumpy, short and sour grass, 
with a great many bare spots where there was no grass at all. 

Int. 6. — What particular knowledge have you of the fitness 
of this soil for agriculture? 

Ans. — I know that several of our men tried to cultivate the 
ground within a mile around the barracks, but it would not 
repay their labor to cultivate it, for nothing whatever could 
be grown. They never tried it after the first year, because 
they could not raise anything. There were also several farm- 
ers of my acquaintance who tried to raise on the high ground, 
but it would not pay their labor. I know a man, but do not 
remember his name, who built a block-house on a claim two 
or three miles north of the post or fort, and abandoned it 
altogether after two years. 

Int. 7. — What do you know of the post garden? 

Ans. — The post garden is a very good piece of ground of 
about five acres, made so by great labor. We took about 
thirty loads of manure there every year from the fort. It is 



273 

about five miles north of the fort. It is the best piece of 
ground I saw from the fort to Olympia. The garden had been 
selected several years before I went there. They always kept 
a garden there. He had a block-house there. 

Int. 8. — What would you estimate to be the value per acre 
of the land embraced on the map marked B? 

Ans. — It is not worth much. I would not take it for a gift 
if I had to pay taxes for it; that is, I mean, for cultivation. 
It is a pretty good pasture country. It is not fenced in. For 
pasturage, and including the timber on it, I would value it 
about fifty cents an acre. I now speak of the whole tract. 

Int. 9. — What is the character of the oak trees on this 
tract? 

Ans.— They are very short, crippled trees, worth nothing 
else but to be used for fire-wood. The general height of them 
is such that a good-sized man could catch the branches. Their 
average thickness is about ten inches through. I never saw 
one more than about eighteen inches through ; never saw one 
two feet through. Their quality is very poor, not fit for 
building or other timber use; white prickly oak, scrub oaks. 

Int. 10. — -What do you know of the number of the oaks on 
this tract of land, known as Nisqually Plain? 

Ans. — The number of them is very spare, except on ome or 
two places where they stand a little thicker. I don't think 
they would average one to an acre. You will find one here, 
and then you might go over a hundred acres before coming to 
another one. They stand so far apart and are so low they 
throw little or no shade. I know only one place, of about 
sixty acres back of the fort, that would average from ten to 
twelve to an acre. I know of no other tract where they would 
average more than one to an acre. 

Int. 11. — Whether or no there were any cattle upon these 
plains ? If so, describe them. 

Ans. — There were a great many cattle on the plains and in 
the woods. They were wild and dangerous on the plains, for 
men either on foot or horseback, for I saw, myself, a bull upset 
a hay-wagon with a pair of oxen to it. I killed several myself 
in self-detence. 



274 

Int. 12. — How were these cattle killed? 

Ans. — They were killed by shooting them in riding after 
them on horseback. I often have seen, in my travels over the 
plains, the Hudson's Bay Company men shoot the cattle in 
this way. I have often helped them myself. The cattle were 
very wild to be got at; they had always to be surrounded by 
the horsemen, and then it took very good horses to overtake 
them on the plains before they reached the woods. When in 
the woods they were wilder than the deer. I would undertake 
to shoot two or three deer before I would be able to get in 
gun-reach of any of those cattle. 

Int. 13. — Whether or no these cattle were branded or 
marked? 

Ans. — I never saw any either branded or marked any way 
at all. 

Int. 14. — Whether or no you knew of any of these cattle 
being killed by the Indians ? 

Ans. — Yes, I have seen the Indians killing them myself. 
They used to cut up the best parts of the meat in long strips 
to dry it, to stow away for winter use. We often found, when 
fighting with the Indians, in 1855 and 1856, whole huts full of 
this dried beef. 

Int. 15. — What do you know of the supply of beef to the 
garrison at Fort Steilacoom ? 

Ans. — We were supplied by the Hudson's Bay Company. 
We used to get beef six days in the week. Dr. Tolmie's carts 
fetched the beef in twice a week to the fort from Fort Nis- 
qually. 

Int. 16. — What was the average number of men at the gar- 
rison? 

Ans. — From two to four companies at a time ; each com- 
pany averaged about sixty- men. 

Int. 17. — Are you acquainted with Fort Nisqually? 

Am. — I often passed, and have been in Fort Nisqually. I 
was engaged at one time as mail-carrier from Fort Steilacoom 
to Olympia, and had to pass Fort Nisqually twice every time 
I went to Olympia ; I brought Dr. Tolmie's mail with the rest. 

Int. 18.— Will you describe the fort ? 



275 

- Ans. — It is a square place, fenced in with stockade-fence. 
There were about six buildings inside of the stockades. There 
was only one house, the dwelling-house of Dr. Tolmie, of any 
value; the rest of them were one-story block-houses. 

Int. 19. — What would you estimate to be the value of this 
fort? 

■Ans. — It would be of no use to any farmer, except as a fort; 
it is a safe place in case the Indians should break out; for 
the land around the fort is very poor; has been cultivated 
once, but is now abandoned; that is, it was abandoned and 
lying waste when I knew it. 

Int. 20.— Whether or no you have any particular knowledge 
which would enable you to estimate the length of time it would 
take a given number of men to erect such a fort? 

Ans. — I have seen several such buildings built in our fort, 
and I think I can estimate how much time it would take a 
given number of men to erect such a fort as that. 

Int. 21. — How long do you think it would have taken ten 
men to have built Fort Nisqually ? And regard in your answer 
the character of the post, and the location of the proper tim- 
ber. 

Ans. — I think it would have taken ten men between eio-ht 
and ten months to build a place like Fort Nisqually. I think 
in this time they could have got out all the timber and put »up 
the place. 

Int. 22. — What was the condition of Fort Nisqually when 
you knew it? 

Ans. — I think it was rather in a careless state ; I think the 
stockades round the fort were in rather a dilapidated state ; 
I think the doors were off; I never saw any there shut. 

Adjourned till May 9th, at 10 o'clock. 

May 9th, 1067. Present, Mr. Beaman and Judge Lander. 

Cross-examination by Judge Lander. 

III}. 1. — Of what nation are you ? 
Ans. — I am a German born. 



276 

Int. 2. — At what age did you come to the United States? 

Ans. — At nineteen years of age. 

Int. 3. — What was your occupation before you enlisted in 
armies of the United States ? 

Ans. — I was employed in a grocery store. 

Int. 4. — What do you mean by a grocery store ? 

Ans. — A store where they sell groceries, liquor, and such 
things ; where they sell liquor by the glass. The store was in 
Williamsburg, New York. 

Int. 5. — What is your present occupation? 

Ans. — I am bar-tender. 

Int. 6. — What time in the year 1853 did you arrive at 
Steilacoom ? 

Ans. — I can't state exactly the month ; we left Vancouver 
in the spring of 1853, and went to Steilacoom. 

Int. 7. — Who was in command of your Company at the 
time ? 

Ans. — First Lieutenant De Lancey Floyd-Jones. 

Int. 8. — What year did you hunt for the officers' mess, and 
what was your rank in the company at that time ? 

Ans. — I hunted in 1853 for the mess, and was private at that 
time. 

Int. 9. — What time did you carry the mail, and what was 
your rank in the company at that time ? 

Ans. — I think it was in 1855 ; I was then private. 

Int. 10. — When did you leave Fort Steilacoom ? 

Ans. — I left Fort Steilacoom in 1857. 

Int. 11. — Did you carry the mail through the whole year 
1855? 

Ans. — I carried it about six months ; in the fall of the year* 
I believe. 

Int. 12. — How often did you go to Olympia ? 

Ans. — Twice a week. 

Int. 13. — Do you feel certain you carried the mail in the 
fall of 1855 ? 

Ans. — I think it was in the fall of 1855. 

Int. 14. — When was the Indian war in that country ? , 

Ans.— In 1856 and 1857. 



277 

Int. 15. — Were you away from the fort with your company 
any portion of that war ? 

Ans. — Yes, sir. 

Int. 16. — Under whose command were you then, and where 
did you go ? 

Ans. — Captain Maloney was in command of the expedition 
after the Indians ; we went up into the Cascade Mountains, 
on White and Green river. 

Int. 17. — Do you know what year this was in? 

Ans. — I can't say exactly ; it is ten years since I have been 
back ; I did not take particular notice. 

Int. 18. — Did you go on any other expedition ? If so, state 
where, and under whose command. 

Ans.— I went on several expeditions after Indians who had 
been murdering white settlers. I have been under Major 
Larned one time, and Lieutenant Von Kautz another time. 

Int. 19. — At what time did you go with Major Larned; 
what year, and what season of the year ? 

Ans. — I can't state the year or the season, but the time 
that Major Larned got drowned ; it was before the war broke 
out. 

Int. 20. — Where did you go with Lieutenant Kautz, and 
when ? 

Ans. — We went down the Sound, stopped at Bellingham 
Bay, and at other different islands in the Sound; I can't say 
when ; but it was before the Indian war. 

Int. 21. — During the Indian war, did you go on any other 
expedition besides that of Captain Maloney's ? 

Ans. — That is the only one I went on. 

Int. 22. — Did you not remain in the garrison from the time 
of the expedition under Captain Maloney until the end of the 
Indian war ? 

Ans. — I remained in the fort, while I was wounded ; in the 
hospital ; I went out again after my wounds were healed up ; 
I returned to my command, which was lying at Porter's 
Prairie. 

Int. 23. — Were they not in garrison there in a block-house? 

Ans. — Not at the time I was there; that fort was built 



278 

after we went back to our fort, as I understood ; I never 
saw it. 

Int. 24. — Did not the wood parties you speak of get their 
wood within a mile or two of the fort ? 

Ans. — Yes ; they got the wood inside of a mile, for the 
fort joined right on to the wood. 

Int. 25. — Were not the cattle, horses, and mules of the 
garrison pastured, during the war, immediately round the 
fort? 

Ans. — The horses and mules were pastured round the fort, 
but we had no cattle. 

Int. 26. — Was not the land immediately round the fort in- 
jured, and the grass destroyed, by this close pasturage? 

Ans. — There was nothing to destroy, for there was not 
much pasturage there ; the horses arid mules were driven in 
in the evening, and fed on barley or oats or whatever we had ; 
they were let out more for recreation than pasturage. 

Int. 27. — Do you know anything of a claim taken up by 
Mr. George Gibbs ? 

Ans. — I don't recollect that man's name. 

Int. 28. — Do you know the claim of Mr. Chambers ? 

Ans. — I do. 

Int. 29. — How near to the fort is it, and was he not a resi- 
dent upon it during all the time you resided at Fort Steila- 
coom ? 

Ans. — His claim was about a mile from the fort ; he resided 
on it ; but I think it was not for the cultivation of his claim, 
as he had a saw-mill there ; he staid there for the saw-mill, 
not for the land. 

Int. 30. — Did not this man Chambers have a large band of 
cattle and horses ? 

Ans. — All I seen was afew horses and a few milch-cows. 

Int. 31. — Did you ever see any of the land on the Nisqually 
Plains enclosed and kept for pasturage ? 

Ans. — I seen small pieces of it fenced in on certain farms 
for the safe keeping of young stock. 

Int. 32. — How is the beef of that country, as served out 
to you — pretty good or bad ? 



279 

Ans. — The beef is pretty good. 

Int. 33. — Who was the man that built a house within two 
or three miles of the fort, and abandoned it ? 

Ans. — I do not remember the name. 

Int. 34. — Did he not abandon during or about the time of 
the Indian war ? 

Ans. — No ; he abandoned it before the war ? 

Int. 35. — Was he not a discharged soldier ? 

Ans. — I think he was a discharged soldier from the second 
artillery, that was stationed there before we came there. 

Int. 36. — Of what nation was he, Irish or German ? 

Ans. — I don't know ; he spoke English ; I don't know 
whether he was Irish or American. 

Int. 37. — Give the name of any farmer of your acquaint- 
ance "who tried to raise on the high land," and state where 
he lived, and how far from the fort, and at what place. 

Ans. — I know one man by name, of the name of Murray, 
a Scotchman, about four miles from the fort, to the left going 
from Fort Steilacoom to Fort Nisqually. I know of another 
man, but I forget his name ; he lived about seven miles from 
the fort, back of the soldiers' garden. 

Int. 38. — Is not that the man who tried to jump the garden? 

Ans. — It was not. 

Int. 39. — Do you know where the Elk Plain is ? 

Ans. — I have been on it. 

Int. 40. — Have you ever been on the Muck Plain ? 

Ans. — I never heard of it. 

Int. 41. — Have you ever been on the prairies which lie to 
the north or left of the roads leading from Fort Steilacoom 
to the crossing of the Puyallup river ? 

Ans. — I have. 

Int. 42. — How far to the north or left of the road have you 
been? 

Ans. — I have been way back into the woods all around, all 
over the prairies. I don't believe there is an inch where I 
have not been. 

Int. 43. — On what part of the plains and how far from the 
fort did you shoot any cattle? 



280 

Ans. — I helped to shoot cattle close to the fort, and so up 
the plains to back of Fort Nisqually; in fact I helped to 
shoot them wherever I met them, that is, the Company's 
people. 

Int. 44:. — Where did you kill one of these in self-defence, 
and what had the animal done to you before you shot him? 

Ans. — I killed one about a mile, say two miles, from Fort 
Steilacoom, on the road to Fort Nisqually. He was tearing 
up the ground, bellowing, and made for me. I took up my 
gun and killed him. 

Int. 45. — Have you not often seen in Germany bulls pawing 
the ground and bellowing? 

Ans. — I did, and I have seen bulls kill people in Germany. 

Int. 46. — Do you know of any cattle being killed by the 
settlers on the plains? 

Ans. — I never saw any so killed. 

Int. 47.-^-State where you saw an Indian killing any one of 
these cattle; how far it was from the fort, and at what time it 
was. 

Ans. — I saw Indians killing cattle in the woods running to 
the right of the road going to Fort Nisqually, about three 
miles from Fort Steilacoom. 

Int. 48. — How many times did you see this done ? 

Ans — I saw it two or three times. 

Int. 49. — Was this before or after the war? 

Ans. — This was before the war. 

Int. 50. — Do you know these were not Indians employed by 
Dr. Tolmie to kill beef for him ? 

Ans. — I know they were not, for when they see me come 
they run away, thinking I was one of the Hudson's Bay men; 
but after they saw who I was they came back and cut up the 
beef. 

Int. 51. — Was it at this time or at some other time that you 
saw the Indians cutting the best parts of the meat into long 
strips? 

Ans. — I saw it at this time. 

Int. 52. — How long did you stop to see it? 

Ans. — Three or four minutes, and then I went on my way 
gunning. 



281 

Int. 53. — Were you on foot or on horseback ? 

Ans. — I was on foot. 

Int. 54. — Were you walking along the road? 

Ans. — This was in the woods; there were no roads. 

Int. 55. — Have you not, when riding on horseback, passed 
under the branches of oak trees on the plains? 

Ans. — Well, I did, stooping down on the horse's neck. 

Int. 56. — Do you think your recollection of this circum- 
stance is as correct as the rest of your testimony? 

Ans. — Yes, for I remember more than once to have stooped 
while riding on horseback. 

Int. 57. — Are there not many oak trees on the road from 
Olympia to Fort Nisqually, under the lowest branches of which 
a man on horseback can easily ride? 

Ans. — There are but very few oak trees on the road from 
Olympia to Fort Nisqually ; there may be a few where a man 
could ride under, but they were very scarce. 

Int. 58. — Did you ever go upon the enclosed fields back of 
Fort Nisqually and to the right of the road leading past the 
fort to Fort Steilacoom? 

Ans. — I never saw any enclosed fields round the fort. 

Int. 59. — Do you not know that during the rainy season it 
is not usual for men to work in the open air in that section of 
the country ? 

Ans. — Well, I do not suppose they would work anywhere 
in the rain if they could help it. I have seen our own men 
Working in the rain, cutting wood and repairing the road. 

Int. 60. — How long does the rainy season continue in that 
country? 

Ans. — I think about three months. 

Int. 61. — Do you know where the farm of a man by the name 
of Lane was? 

Ans. — I don't recollect that name. 

Int. 62. — Do you recollect a settler by the name of Rigdon? 

Ans. — I do not. 

Int. 63. — Do you recollect a settler by the name of Downie? 

Ans. — No. I was not acquainted with all the farmers* 
names, for I had not much to do with them. 



282 

Int. 64. — How many settlers should you say were on the 
plains at the time you say you hunted over them? 

Ans. — I could not recollect the number of the settlers that 
were living on the plains. 

Int. 65. — How often have you been ten miles away from the 
fort on hunting expeditions? 

Ans. — A good many^times. 

Int. 66. — State, if you can, any particular occasion on which 
you were away that distance from the fort, the time of the 
year, the game you brought home, and the length of time you 
were gone from the fort. 

Ans. — I can't state any particular occasion, but have been 
away often; have brought home ducks, geese, and deer; have 
left before daylight, and have not returned till ten and eleven 
o'clock at night. 

Int. 67. — Did you hunt upon the plains daring the Indian 
war? 

Ans. — I did not. 

Int. 68. — You speak of manure being used on the post gar- 
den ; could not manure have been used equally well on other 
portions of the plain? 

Ans. — Not on the high ground ; there was no soil there for 
it to do any good; it would dry up. 

Int. 69. — Was there not, in the spring of the year, a regu- 
lar growth of grass over these plains ? 

Ans. — Yes, such as it is ; small, short, sour grass. 

Re-examined by Mr. Beaman. 

Int. 1. — How long have you lived in the United States ? 

Ans. — Seventeen years. 

Int. 2. — What was your occupation before you came to this 
country ? 

Ans. — Game-keeper. 

Int. 3. — Have you ever been on what is designated Muck 
Plain, on map marked B? 

Ans. — I have been all over the whole plains, but I do not 
recollect ever having heard that part called Muck Plain. 



283 

Int. 4. — Referring to the prairies alluded to in cross-inter- 
rogatories 41 and 42, and in your answers to the same inter- 
rogatories, are the oaks any more abundant on those plains 
than on other parts of the Nisqually Plains? 

Ans. — They are not more so there than on any other part. 

Int. 5. — Whether or no there was any enclosed land within 
a mile of Fort Nisqually? 

Ans. — There had been fences there that enclosed land, but 
there were none in my time? 

Re- Cross-Examined by Judge Lander. 

Int. 1. — Have you ever been one mile south of Fort Nis- 
qually ? 

Ans. — I think I have been all around it. 

Int. 2. — Look at the map marked B, now shown you, and on 
the enclosure marked Fort Farm, in a southeast and south di- 
rection from Fort Nisqually, and state whether you ever saw 
that enclosed ground or not. 

Ans. — I saw that enclosed piece of ground, but I think it 
is more than a mile from the fort. 

Int. 3. — What does it enclose ; what you call high ground 
or low ground, like the Steilacoom garden ? 

Ans. — I think it is both high and low ground. 

Int. 4. — Are you certain that this enclosure is more than a 
mile from the fort ? 

Ans.- — I think it is, to the best of my recollection. 

Int. 5. — Was the enclosure in that shape when you carried 
the mail on that road? 

Ans. — It was. 

.Re-examined by Mr. Beaman. 

Int. 1. — How large a tract was the tract which you have 
spoken of as enclosed, more than a mile southeasterly of Fort 
Nisqually? 

Ans. — I cannot state exactly how large it was. 

Int. 2.— Was it cultivated by the people of the fort ? 



284 

Ans.- — It was. 

Int. 3. — Was it more than fifty acres in area? 

Ans. — I can't state ; it is too long since I have been there. 

Int. 4. — Whether or no there were remains of any fencing 
within a mile of the fort ? 

Ans. — They had, adjoining the fort, a pen to keep the 
horses in ; I remember no other fences. 

M. Mogk. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this ninth day of May, 
1867. 

Charles Sergeant, 
U. S. Commissioner. 



United States of America, \ 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania, j 

I, Charles Sergeant, United States Commissioner, duly ap- 
pointed and commissioned* by the circuit court of the United 
States in and for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, do 
hereby certify that the foregoing deposition of Maximilian 
Mogk was taken and reduced to writing by L. C. Cleemann, 
my clerk, under my direction, and in my presence and in the 
presence of said witness, from his statements on the eighth and 
ninth days of May, 1867, at my office, No. 123 South Fifth 
street, Philadelphia, in pursuance of a verbal agreement 
made in my presence by C. C. Beaman, Esq., counsel for the 
United States, and Edward Lander, Esq., as counsel for the 
Puget's Sound Agricultural Company. 

I further certify that to said witness, before his examina- 
tion, I administered the following oath: 

u You do swear that the evidence you are about to give in 
the matter of the claim of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
Company against the United States shall be the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God." 

I further certify that said foregoing deposition was care- 



285 

i 
fully read to said witness, and then signed by him in my pres- 
ence. 

I do further certify that the paper hereto annexed, marked 
" B," is the one referred to in the testimony of Maximilian 
Mogk. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and offi- 
cial seal, at my office in the city of Philadelphia, 
L L * S 'J this ninth day of May, 1867. 

Charles Sergeant, 
United States Commissioner. 



BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION 



HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICUL- 
TURAL COMPANIES' CLAIMS. 



In the matter of the Claim of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
Company against the .United States. 

Deposition of Mr. George W. Lee, witness produced on the 
part of the United States this 1st day of May, 1867, at 
Washington city, D. C. Mr. C. C. Bearnan counsel of the 
United States, and Mr. Edward Lander counsel of the 
Puget's Sound Agricultural Company. 

Testimony of George W. Lee. 

Int. 1. — What is your name, residence, and occupation ? 

Ans. — My name is George W. Lee; my residence is Wash- 
ington city, D. C. I am in the Quartermaster General's Office 
of the War Department. 

Int. 2. — Have you ever lived in Washington Territory ? 

Ans. — I have.- I went there in January, 1853; I left there 
in 1858, the latter part of May or early in June. My home, 
properly speaking, was at Steilacoom, Pierce county. When 
I first went on the Sound I was engaged in lumber business, 
getting piles and square timber for the San Francisco market. 
I was in this lumber business until about the middle or latter 
part of 1854. I then engaged in the newspaper business at 
Steilacoom, and remained at that, with few exceptions, until I 
left there in May or June, 1858. 

Int. 3. — Are you acquainted with the post of the Puget's 
Sound Agricultural Company at Nisqually ? 

Ans. — Yes, I am. 
20 P 



288 

Int. 4. — Will you describe it as you first saw it, and any 
changes that subsequently took place? 

Ans. — It was an ordinary stockade, with some warehouses 
inside. The building in which Dr. Tolmie was living when I 
first went there was in very bad order, but he continued to im- 
prove it. The first time I saw it was early in 1853. There 
was a long warehouse on the beach, where they put goods over- 
night at the landing. There was a small place where a watch- 
man lived, a servant of the Company; he was blind, I think ; 
his name was James Scarf. The buildings were most of them 
of hewed logs. The building in which Dr. Tolmie lived was a 
frame building, of sawed lumber, as far as my memory serves 
me. 

Int. 5. — What was the value of the Company's post at 
Nisqually ? 

Ans.— If you talk about the intrinsic value of the build- 
ings, I should not think ic would amount to any great sum. I 
should say the principal value was as a trading-post or busi- 
ness-stand. A few thousand dollars would put up such build- 
ings. 

Int. 6. — Was there any cultivated land around the post? 

Ans. — There was a patch there, where they used to raise 
stuff for those that lived at the post — not more than an acre 
and a half or two acres. 

Int. 7. — Were there any indications of other lands having 
been cultivated at a previous time? 

Ans. — Yes, there were indications of land having been cul- 
tivated there. 

Int. 8. — How would that appear ? 

Ans. — The old furrows, and other indications familiar to 
one who had been acquainted with cultivated land, showed 
[that] other lands had been cultivated. 

Int. 9. — What was the character of this land that appeared 
to have been cultivated? 

Ans. — It appeared to have been worn out. It was not what 
I would call enclosed; there were rails lying about it. ' 

Int. 10. — Whether or not this land was covered with sorrel? 



289 

Arts. — The whole country through there was sorrel, as a 
general thing. 

Int. 11. — -Whether or no you are acquainted with a tract of 
land extending along the shores of Puget's Sound, from the 
Nisqually river on the one side to the Puyallup on the other, 
and back to the Coast range of mountains ; and, if so, what is 
its character ? 

Ans. — I have ridden over the greater portion of it. Along 
on the Nisqually and Puyallup bottoms is an excellent quality 
of agricultural land, but liable to overflow, and covered with 
heavy timber. There are a few fern prairies among the fir 
timber — -what they call patches of fern prairie. That is the 
character of the land skirting around the shores of the Sound 
and the base of the mountains. In the central portion it was 
sandy, gravelly prairies, with an occasional little lake and 
small patches of timber. The general character might be 
called prairie land. 

Int. 12. — What was the general character of the prairie 
land ? 

Ans, — Very poor land. 

Int. 13.— Whether or no it was capable of being perma- 
nently enriched by manure ? 

Ans. — Not, as far as my observation went. 

Int. 14. — State why not. 

Ans. — It was very heavily gravelled ; in ploughing it up 
you would turn up nothing but gravel in most places. It 
would not hold manure ; no base, nothing for the manure to 
mix with; what you would call leachy ground; manure would 
run right through. 

Int. 15. — What was the value of this prairie land? 

Ans. — Some of it wasn't worth anything. In damp places, 
where there was a little vegetable matter, you might raise 
fifteen or twenty bushels of grain to the acre; and that for 
not more than one or two crops. These damp places bore a 
very small proportion to the whole of the land. I would not 
waste my time in attempting to cultivate it for agricultural pur- 
poses. A few parties have taken up claims there, but, after 
spending some time, in many instances abandoned their claims. 



290 

Int. 16. — -Did you have any occasion to notice the abundance 
of the oak timber on this land ? 

Ans. — Yes. The oak timber was not what I should call oak 
timber for commercial purposes. The character of the oak 
was scrubby and inferior; here and there an isolated tree. 
There were a good many oak bushes, scrubs. , 

Int. 17. — What did you estimate to have been the number 
of oak trees on the tract you have described per acre ? 

Ans. — It would not average a good oak tree to the acre, in 
my opinion. 

Int. 18. — Whether or no there were any cattle roaming on 
these plains ? 

Ans. — Yes, I have seen cattle roaming there. 

Int. 19. — Were they branded? 

Ans. — I never noticed brands on them. 

Int. 20. — What was the character of these cattle? 

Ans. — The same kind of cattle we have in California- 
Spanish ; what you call California wild cattle. 

Int. 21. — Whether or no Dr. Tolmie or any officers of the 
Puget's Sound Agricultural Company shipped cattle from 
Steilacoom ? 

Ans. — I have seen them ship cattle from the Nisqually 
landing. I have seen several loads go down the Sound. * 

Int. 22. — What do you know of the character of the winter 
of 185*2-3 ? 

Ans. — The winter was very severe on the whole coast. 

Int. 23. — Do you know anything of the destruction of cattle 
that winter? 

Ans. — I know a good many cattle starved on the coast, from 
exposure to weather and scarcity of food. 

Int. 24. — Do you know anything of the scarcity of provis- 
ions that winter ? 

Ans. — Provisions were very scarce ; flour sold at $45 and 
$50 a barrel that winter. Most of the flour there came from 
San Francisco. 

Int. 25. — Whether or no you are acquainted with the claim 
of William B. Bolton, on Puget's Sound, near Steilacoom? 



291 

Ans. — Yes, sir. It is between three and four miles from 
Steilacoom. 

Int. 26. — What is the character of this claim? 

Ans. — It is what they call a fir-timber-claim right on the 
shores of the Sound. 

Int. 27. — What do you know of Bolton's business? 

Ans. — He was ship-carpenter. He used to repair any little 
damage done to vessels, and he got out piles and square timber. 

Int. 28. — Whether or no you know of any three acres of 
ground on Bolton's claim, or on the tract of land described in 
" Interrogatory 11," on which four hundred oak trees suitable 
for shipping could have been cut? 

Ans. — -There is no such place on Bolton's claim or on Puget's 
Sound, and very few such places in the world, in my opinion. 
By trees, I mean such as are fit for saw logs. 

Int. 29. — Describe the mouth of the Steilacoom creek. 

Ans. — It is not a navigable stream. No harbor there; no 
more than any other portion of the Sound. I can wade across 
the mouth of it in low-water; a loaded canoe could not get up 
it at low-water. 

Int. 30. — What do you know of any mills on Steilacoom 
creek ? 

Ans. — There were two mills there; one was Chambers's and 
the other Bird's. Chambers's mill was the one nearest to the 
Sound; Bird's was about a mile above it. Chambers's was a 
saw-mill, afterwards, I think, turned into a grist-mill. The 
upper mill was a grist-mill, with a saw-mill attached. There 
were no other mills on this stream. There was not water 
enough to run both mills regularly. Chambers complained 
that the mill above him took the water from him. There was 
not water enough in the summer to run more than one of the 
mills regularly. The water was very low in the summer. 

Int. 31. — -What do you know of any mills on the Segwal- 
Itchew? 

Ans. — -There was a mill owned by Balch and Webber — a 
saw-mill. That did not amount to much. 

Int. 32. — Did you ever visit the garden of the military post 
at Steilacoom? 



292 

Ans. — Yes, several times. It was a very nice place; a little 
wet; enriched by the manure hauled there from the station; 
a good deal of labor expended on it. It was kept in very 
good order. 

Int. 33. — Whether or no you ever knew beef and mutton to 
be sold by Dr. Tolmie or his servants? 

Ans. — Yes; I have bought both from him myself. He used 
to send a cart into Steilacoom with them. 

Int. 34. — Whether or no you ever knew Dr. Tolmie to ship 
sheep, or to sell them to breeders or other persons? 

Ans. — I have known sheep to be shipped from there. I have 
known parties to come to Nisqually to buy sheep, and they 
took them off with them. I think, in one instance, the brig 
Cyrus took off a lot of sheep, somewhere down the coast. 

Int. 35. — When did the Americans begin to settle in Pierce 
county? 

Ans. — In the fall of 1853. The first immigration came by 
way of the Cascade mountains; the few who came previously 
either came from Oregon, overland, or by water from San 
Francisco. 

Int. 36. — What was the population of Pierce county when 
you left it? 

Ans.— Not more, I think, than about 500 white population. 

Int. 37. — Did you ever know any sales of land in Pierce 
county? 

Ans. — I did not hear of sales of land. I knew of men sell- 
ing their houses and some town lots. 

Cross-Examination . 

Int. 1. — Has not your occupation been that of, and were 
you not brought up to, the profession of the printer? 

Ans. — Yes; but had nothing to do with it after serving my 
time in 1848, until I went to Steilacoom and connected myself 
with the Puget's Sound Courier in 1854. 

Int. 2. — In what business were you engaged from 1848 until 
you came to Washington Territory in 1853? 

Ans. — I was engaged in mining and trading in San Francisco 



293 

and the interior of California. In 1851 1 went to Port Orford, 
in Oregon, engaged in making a settlement there, and looking 
for timber there, with a view of going into the timber business 
there, or anything else that would turn up. Then I was back 
in California again mining and trading, and, after being at 
that, I made arrangements with parties in San Francisco to 
furnish them with piles and square timber, and that was what 
took me to Puget's Sound. 

Int. 3. — Did you not, at any time between 1848 and 1853, 
work at your trade? 

Ans.—~ Not more than six weeks in the whole time. I did 
not follow it as a business. I gave it up on account of my 
health. 

Int. 4. — Did you not work as a compositor in a printing 
office at Steilacoom, from the latter part of the summer of 
1854 until May or June, 1858 ? 

Ans. — A portion of the time, I did. 

Int. 5. — Were you not, during the times I have mentioned, 
engaged in setting type ? 

Ans. — Not all the time. 

Int. 6. — How many times were you ever at the house or 
landing, upon the claim of Mr. Bolton ? 

Ans.— Fully half a dozen times, if not more. 

Int. 7. — Did you go there by land or by water ? 

Ans. — I have been there by land and water both. 

Int. 8. — How many times have you been there by land, and 
which way does the road run ; what portion of it runs along 
the prairie; what portion is along the beach, and below the 
bluff; how do you approach the clearing of Mr. Bolton-— by 
the road, by beach, or by prairie? 

Ans. — I suppose I have been there by land twice. The road 
runs parallel with the Sound, on the ridge. The road is a sort 
of trp.il. There is no gravelly prairie along the road, not of 
any large extent. Never went on the beach at all. Mr. Bol- 
ton's house is near the beach ; I went right down the hill to 
his house. There is a road starting from Fort Steilacoom 
that is a roundabout way ; but, going from the town of Steila- 
coom, there is a trail. 



294 

Int. 9 — Does not this road, for the last mile before reaching 
his house, go through the forest of fir timber ? 

Ans. — The whole trail is timber land, with here and there 
an open patch. 

Int. 10. — Did you see oak trees on this last mile of land in 
the fir forest ? 

Ans. — None, that I noticed. 

Int. 11. — Does not this belt of fir timber, bordering on the 
Sound, for a mile above and a mile below the clearing at Bol- 
ton's claim, extend at least one-half mile back from the Sound? 

Ans. — Yes, it does. 

Int. 12. — Have you ever been back of Bolton's clearing, so 
as to go through the fir woods bordering on the Sound to the 
other prairie ? 

Ans. — No ; I have not been on the prairie from the direc- 
tion of Bolton's house. I have been on the prairie supposed 
to lie back of Bolton's House, from the direction of Fort 
Steilacoom. 

Int. 13. — How large a prairie is this ? 

Ans. — From the length of time since I have been there, I 
cannot say how large the prairie is. 

Int. 14. — How far from the post at Steilacoom is this prairie 
that you speak of? 

Ans. — A mile and a half or two miles. 

Int. 15. — Do you not know that the Chambers mill, on Steil- 
acoom creek, is at least a mile and a half lower down the 
stream than the mill you call Bird's mill, and that the fall in 
the stream between these two mills is at least ten feet ? 

Ans. — I have already answered about the distance. I can- 
not answer as to the fall. 

Int. 16. — Was the land on the road leading to Soldier's Gar- 
den, for the whole distance, covered with sorrel ? 

Ans. — I did not minutely examine; as a general thing, it 
was there. The only places you would not strike the sorrel 
was when you got down near the lakes. 

Int. 17. — Was there not, from the summer of 1855 to the 
summer of 1857, an Indian war going on in the country 



295 

around the Sound, and especially in the country back of Steil- 
acoom ? 

Ans. — Yes. 

Int. 18. — At the time you arrived in Steilacoom, in January, 
1853, was there any snow upon the ground ? 

Ans. — I am not positive. 

Int. 19. — Was there any snow there between the time you 
arrived and the spring ; and, if so, how much was there, and 
how long did it remain ? 

Ans. — I don't remember any. The weather was severe, but 
snow rarely falls on the Sound ; but 1 have known snow to be 
eight or ten miles from Steilacoom when there was none on the 
Sound. 

Int. 20. — Did you see, after your arrival at Steilacoom, in 
1853, during that winter or spring, any snow in the country 
back of Steilacoom ? 

Ans. — I saw it at a distance. 

Int. 21. — At what distance did you see it, and when ? 

Ans. — On the Cascade mountains, a range of mountains 
back of Steilacoom, and on the hills running down to the canal, 
(Hood's.) 

JExamination-in- Chief Resumed. 

Int. 1. — State all that you know in regard to Mr. Bolton's 
claim — its extent, the quality of its timber, and the oppor- 
tunity you have had for knowing this ? 

Ans. — When I have stopped there the question of timber 
would naturally come out, and we would go out to look at it. 
The timber on his claim, what I saw of it, was very good piles, 
good timber claim. I should say, though not familiar with his 
lines; that from what showed me, that he had half a mile 
fronting on the Sound. I never saw any oak timber of any 
great quantity, more than was at any other places. 

Int. 2. — Whether or no you ever understood from him that 
his claim extended into the prairie ? 

Ans. — I never did. 

Int. 3. — State all you know in regard to the location of 



296 

Bird's mill as having interfered with the running of Cham- 
ber's mill. 

(Objected to as having already been inquired into in the 
examination-in-chief, and no new matter being brought out in 
cross-examination.) 

Ans. — I know that when Bird's mill was put in operation, 
Judge Chambers found fault. There was talk of litigation or 

in reference to the matter, Chambers claiming that 

there was not water enough for both mills ; that Bird's mill 
took the water from him. Several theories existed as to the 
loss of the w T ater ; generally thought the water went into the 
ground. 

(Chamber's statements objected to.) 

Cross-Examination Resumed. 

Int. 1. — Do you know anything more about the loss of water 
than you know from Chambers's complaints, and did he com- 
plain to you ? 

Ans. — All I know was from Chambers's conversations with 
me. 

G. W. Lee. 



In the matter of the Claim of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
Company against the United States. 

Deposition of William B. McMurtrie, witness examined on 
behalf of the United States, at Washington city, D. C, 
this 2d clay of May, 1867. 

Testimony of William B. McMurtrie. 

Int. 1. — State your name, residence, and occupation. 

Ans. — William B. McMurtrie ; hydrographic draughtsman, 
Coast Survey; Washington, D. C. 

Int. 2. — Are you acquainted with Steilacoom creek, which 
empties into Puget's Sound? 

Ans. — Yes ; I have been in it several times. 

Int. 3. — Look at this map, entitled " Reconnoissance of Steil- 



297 

acoom Harbor, Washington Territory," and state by whom, 
and under what circumstances, it was made ? 

Ans. — It was made by Lieutenant James Alden, United 
States Navy, Assistant Coast Survey, in 1856, for the purpose 
of navigation. This map or chart was drawn by myself, as 
draughtsman of the survey party. 

Int. 4. — Will you describe this creek ? 

Ans. — This creek, owing to the bars at the entrance, cannot 
be entered at low-water, except by small boats — the mean 
rise and fall of tides being 9.2 feet; mean rise of spring tide 
is 11.1 feet. This is serpentine in its course; but when once 
a small vessel is across the bar, it might lie with safety. 

Int. 5. — How large a vessel could enter Steilacoom creek ? 

Ans. — As to the water, at high tide, a vessel drawing nine 
or ten feet might enter, but, owing to the narrowness of the 
channel and its serpentine course, it would be difficult for a 
large vessel to lie inside. I have never heard of any vessel 
lying in the creek. 

Cross-Examination. 

Int. 1. — Could not, at high-water, a vessel drawing twelve 
feet be warped into the creek ? 

Ans. — At spring tides, extraordinary high water, such a 
vessel might be warped in. 

Wm. B. McMurtrie. 



In the matter of the Claim of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
Company against the United States. 

Deposition of Edward I. Allen, witness produced on the 
part of the United States, and examined by agreement be- 
tween C. C. Beaman, counsel for the United States, and 
Edward Lander, counsel for the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
Company. 

Testimony of Edward I. Allen. 

Int. 1. — What is your name, residence, and occupation? 
Ans. — Edward I.Allen; Pittsburg, Pennsylvania; Secre- 



298 

tary and Treasurer of the Pacific and Atlantic Telegraph 
Company of the United States. 

Int. 2. — Are you acquainted with Nisqually, a post of the 
Puget's Sound Agricultural Company ? 

Ans. — I have been there frequently, at different times from 
1852 to 1855. 

Int. 3. — Describe the fort and post. 

Ans. — Stockaded fort, with court and buildings enclosed. 

Int. 4. — What business were you engaged in, in the years 
1852 and 1855? 

Ans. — The greater portion of the time, I was building the 
military road from Fort Steilacoom to Fort Walla-Walla. 

Int. 5. — State whether you know the cost of labor in the 
territory about Nisqually, from the years 1852 to 1855. 

Ans. — As to Indian labor the price depended almost entirely 
upon the person hiring. A stranger would have to pay more 
for Indian labor than the employes of the Company paid them, 
or any persons who had their confidence. The only white 
labor I was acquainted with was wood-chopping. I employed 
some twenty or forty wood-choppers. I paid them $60 per 
month and found them in provisions. 

Int. 6. — State what was the value of the Puget's Sound 
Agricultural Company's post and buildings at Nisqually. 

Ans. — I should suppose the buildings and enclosures there 
would cost the Company, when built, $3,000 or $4,000. It is 
difficult to estimate the value of buildings when one's observa- 
tion was not made with the purpose of forming an estimate of 
the cost; but I would suppose that the post could have been 
built, at the time I was there, at a cost not much greater than 
the amount stated. I understood labor to have been higher 
when I was there than it had previously been, or afterwards 
was. 

Int. 7. — What do you know of the claim made, from 1852 
to 1855, to any lands about the fort at Nisqually? 

Ans. — I always understood, at that time, that they claimed 
ten square miles. That was the extent of their claim, as I 
understood it from the settlers. 



299 

(Understanding of the witness objected to as hearsay, and 
incompetent.) 

Int. 8. — What was the character of the land at Nisqually, 
extending along the shores of Puget's Sound from the Nis- 
qually river on the one side to the Puyallup river on the other, 
and back to the Coast [Cascade] range of mountains? 

Ans. — The woodlands and prairie generally very poor; nar- 
row strips of arable land along the streams; difficult to enclose 
sufficient arable land to make a moderate-sized farm, in a com- 
pact shape. The prairie land was generally gravelly, very 
leachy, and continued cultivation decreased the crop raised, 
as the gravel worked to the surface and the soil became almost 
entirely lost to view. The bulk of the lands lying about Fort 
Nisqually were remarkably poor, having a scant growth of 
sorrel, to the almost utter exclusion of anything else. Fre- 
quently passing over those lands in rainy weather, when the 
rain had been continuous for days, I never saw any mud on 
those lands, from the almost complete absence of any material 
of which it could be made. 

Int. 9. — What would you estimate to be the average value 
per acre of the tract of land described in the previous question ? 

Ans. — For the prairie lands generally, I would consider 25 
cents per acre a fair valuation. The arable land would be 
worth probably $1.50 per acre. I should think 50 cents per 
acre would be a fair valuation for the whole of the land. 

Int. 10. — What number of oak trees per acre would you 
estimate to have been on the tract of land described in the 8th 
interrogatory, and now read to you? 

Ans. — I doubt whether there would be 150,000 oak trees on 
said tract of land; I doubt whether there was an oak tree to 
an acre. There were [a] few clumps of oak trees near the fort, 
lying between the fort and the Sound; further back, towards 
the mountains they were exceedingly rare. Here and there 
an oak tree might be seen in the belts of woods separating the 
prairies, and near the alluvials marking the course of the 
streams, but the deciduous trees generally are Cottonwood and 
alder. 



300 

Int. 11.— What would you estimate to have been the value 
of these oak trees? 

Ans. — They were so few in number, I never heard it made 
a matter of calculation bv men owning mills. Designing at 
one time to go into the milling business myself, and desirous 
of locating in the best locality for making money, and endeav- 
oring to acquire full information about the timber, I never at 
any time took into consideration the possibility of getting any 
considerable amount of oak timber any where on the Sound, 
nor ever had any suggestion made to me as to the possibility 
of getting any considerable quantity of oak timber on the 
Sound by those whose advice I sought. 

Int. 12. — State what you know in regard to any cattle on 
the plains about Nisqually ? 

Ans. — I know that there was [a] considerable quantity of cat- 
tle on the plains, some of which were claimed by the settlers, 
but the large bodies of which were said to belong to the Hudson's 
Bay Company. The smaller bodies belonging to the settlers 
were generally found in close proximity to their farms, to pre- 
vent their escaping into the larger herds. The larger herds, 
said to belong to the Hudson's Bay Company, occupied prairies 
more distant from the settled farms. They were in a wild 
state, and when slaughtered were shot by men on horseback. 
Some of the prairies where they pastured it was dangerous to 
cross afoot, and I have been repeatedly warned that it was 
even dangerous to attempt it on horseback, on account of the 
ferocity of some of the bulls. 

(Mr. Lander objected to the last portion of this answer, as 
being hearsay, and incompetent.) 

On one or two occasions, on passing through, I was satisfied 
the danger was not an imaginary one. 

Int. 13. — Do you know anything in regard to the value of 
these cattle? 

Ans. — While building the military road from Steilacoom to 
Walla-Walla, I accepted the proposition of Dr. Tolmie to 
choose from such herds as I might be able to hunt down 
and shoot, and pay therefor at $5.00 per head. I so shot 



301 

a considerable number of cattle, and paid for them at that 
price. 

Int. 14. — What do you know of any other parties beincr 
supplied by cattle from these same herds? 

Ans. — Messrs. Weed and Hurd. from Olympia, who supplied 
the market at Olympia with fresh beef, procured their cattle 
from Dr. Tolmie. 

Int. 15. — What was the character of the winter of 1852, in 
Washington Territory, and what do you know of its effect 
upon your own or any other cattle ? 

Ans.— It was very severe; there was about two feet of 
snow on the ground for a long time. Large quantities of cat- 
tle died, not being able, from the depth of snow, to get any- 
thing to eat. Very few cattle, except those that were very fat 
before the snow fell, or those which were specially cared for 
by the settlers and fed regularly, survived; and great num- 
bers of the latter even perished, I suppose, for want of proper 
shelter. I had five oxen of my own, which I attended to with 
great regularity every day while the snow lasted ; I succeeded 
by doing so, in saving all but one. The farmer from whom I 
purchased my hay, not taking the special care of his cattle 
which I took of mine, lost a considerable number. Nearly all 
the cattle east of the Cascades died that winter. I knew sev- 
eral parties who had herds of cattle east of the Cascades 
from whom I derived this information. 

(The latter part of this answer, as to cattle dying east of 
the Cascade range of mountains, objected to by Mr. Lander 
as irrelevant, and that portion from information of others as 
hearsay and incompetent.) 

Int. 16. — Whether or no you ever heard anything from the 
Indians in regard to the destruction of the cattle this winter. 

(Mr. Lander objects to this question as incompetent and 
irrelevant.) 

Ans.— Frequently seeing sculls and bones of cattle in the 
mountains, the Indians stated that they were the bones of cattle 
that had left the plains and gone towards the mountains for 
subsistence during the severe season, and they perished there. 
Most likely some of the bones found near the base of the 



302 

mountains were those of cattle surreptitiously killed by the 
Indians for their own purposes. Coming down from the moun- 
tains at one time, I discovered a party of Indians gathered 
around the carcase of one of these cattle, which they acknowl- 
edged having taken without leave. I frequently saw fresh 
beef in the lodges of the Indians on the Puyallup, which I 
suppose was obtained in the same way. 

(Mr. Lander objects to the statements derived from the In- 
dians.) 

Int. 17. — Did you ever know of any cattle or horses being 
killed by wild beasts ? 

Ans. — There were many cougars in that country; they were 
very dangerous and ferocious. At one time, in my camp in 
the mountains, one came into the camp in daylight, and seemed 
utterly fearless, evidently driven by hunger, and appeared de- 
termined to seize a quarter of beef that was in camp; and 
although there were many men in the camp, they had no fire- 
arms, and had it not been for a larger body of men coming 
into camp at that moment, it would undoubtedly have seized 
the beef. A few days previously to this incident the packer 
who brought the beef to me reported five or six mares disabled 
or killed, within the limits of the land spoken of above, by 
cougars, and the stallion saved himself by plunging into the 
lake. 

Int. 18. — Do you know anything as to the value of the sheep 
owned by the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company? 

_A nSt — I know there was mutton supplied by Dr. Tolmie to 
Messrs. Weed and Hurd, of Olympia. I cannot say what 
price they paid for it. At one time, in coming from Steila- 
coom to Cowlitz river, a drove of sheep was driven over at 
the same time by some Hudson Bay employes. It was cus- 
tomary with them to kill .and eat what sheep they needed on 
the route, and as their choice seemed to be, as far as I could 
judge, governed by no consideration but the fatness of the 
animal chosen, I inferred that the valuation of the sheep 
would be as the basis of mutton per pound. 

Int. 19. — What was the number and the character of the 
horses owned by the Company at Nisqually ? 



303 

Ans, — I can't say as to the number ; they were similar to 
those generally seen about the Hudson's Bay Company's sta- 
tions, Indian ponies, used for packing, bearing generally the 
marks of the services they had undergone. 

Int. 20.— What do you know of the price and value of such 
horses ? 

Ans. — I can only judge of the price of these animals by the 
price at which I could have obtained better, because not so 
hardly used, animals of the same stock. The oifer Was made 
by Piu-piu-mox-mox to our farm at Fort Walla- Walla to sell any 
number of horses we might choose out of his herds at $13 per 
head, payable in blankets. It was my design to have pur- 
chased a herd of these horses, and driven them across the 
plains to the States. This point was about 225 miles from 
Fort Steilacoom, which is near Nisqually. 

(Mr. Lander objects to this answer, so far as it states the 
price of horses at Walla-Walla, as irrelevant.) 

Int. 21. — What would it have cost to have brought a hun- 
dred horses from Walla-Walla to Nisqually ? 

Ans. — Two hundred dollars would be a liberal estimate. 

Int. 22. — In your answer to Interrogatory 12, you have 
spoken of cattle as said to belong to the Hudson's Bay Com. 
pany, did you mean that these cattle belonged to the Hudson's 
Bay Company or the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company? 
In answer to this question, make a statement of the connection 
between the two Companies, as understood by you and by the 
American settlers around Nisqually. 

(Mr. Lander objects to that portion of the question as re- 
lates to the understanding of the witness and the American 
settlers as incompetent.) 

Ans. — The distinction you make between the Hudson's Bay 
Company and the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company is one 
not made by the American settlers in that vicinity, so far as my 
knowledge extends. In all matters relating to the two Com- 
panies named, there is but one title given — that of Hudson's 
Bay Company. I found this' also the custom of the former 
employes of the Hudson's Bay Company. My own and the 
general impression was, the so-called Puget's Sound Agricul- 
21 P 



304 

tural Company was an organization made by the officers of the 
Hudson's Bay Company, through which claims could be urged 
against the United States which could not have been urged 
through the Hudson's Bay Company. 

(Mr. Lander objects to the statements of the former em- 
ployes of the Hudson's Bay Company; the understanding of 
this witness — his and other people's convictions — objected to as 
incompetent and irrelevant.) 

Int. 23. — What were the relations of the Companies to 
officers of the United States and citizens resident in the Ter- 
ritory ? 

Ans. — The relations generally, so far as my knowledge ex- 
tended, were not friendly with the settlers. Among the set- 
tlers there seemed to be a great deal of hard feeling against 
the Hudson's Bay Company. Among officers the reverse 
seemed to be the case. 

Cross- Examination of Edward I. Allen. 

Int. 1. — At what time did you leave Puget's Sound? Please 
to give the month and year. 

Ans. — It was about February or March, 1855. 

Int. 2. — At what time did you arrive on the Sound ? 

Ans. — I think, about the beginning of October, 1852. 

Int. 3. — How much of that two years and three months were 
you at Olympia ? 

Ans. — About eighteen months, I judge. 

Int. 4. — Did you not take a donation claim in the timber 
near Olympia, and reside upon and cultivate that claim until 
you left the Sound ? 

Ans. — No, sir. 

Int. 5. — When did you abandon this claim, or sell or deliver 
possession of it to any other person ? Give, if you can, the 
date of the abandonment or transfer. 

Ans. — I never either abandoned or transferred any claim in 
Washington Territory. 

Int. 6. — Did you not take up a donation claim near Olym- 



305 

pia ? If so, state how far it was from that place, and how far 
from the Nisqually Plains. 

Ans. — Under the act which allowed purchase after two 
years' residence, I purchased a claim about two and a half 
miles from Olympia, and about eighteen or twenty miles from 
Nisqually. 

Int. 7. — Did you not file a notification in the Land Office 
declaring your intention to reside upon and cultivate this tract 
of land which you say you purchased, and did you not, about 
two years after the date of this notification, file in the Land 
Office an affidavit stating, among other things, that you had 
resided upon and cultivated this tract of land for the period 
of your said notification ? 

Ans. — Yes, sir. 

Int. 8. — Was the military road on which you say you worked 
on the route across the Natchess Pass of the Cascade moun- 
tains, and was not your time chiefly occupied, while working 
on that road, on what is called the mountain sections of the 
road ? 

Ans.— it was across the Natchess Pass. While I was occu- 
pied upon that road, I was occupied nearly all the time in the 
mountain sections, with the exception of occasional returns to 
my domicil on Puget's Sound, to attend to crops and other 
matters relating thereto. 

Int. 9. — Was there not a plain trail, easily distinguishable, 
leading across the plains from the point where you entered the 
woods, bordering on the Puyallup, to the military post called 
Fort Steilacoom, and from there by Fort ISTisqually to Olympia ? 

Ans. — There was a regular road, as I should call it, running 
as you have designated. 

Int. 10. — Was not this the route usually travelled by you on 
your visits to your claim, from your work in the mountains, 
except when you might occasionally visit the town of Steila- 
coom or go through there on your way to Olympia ? 

Ans. — 'Very nearly the road pursued. 

Int. 11. — Was there not a place called Montgomery's near 
the line of woods bordering on the Puyallup, by which you 



306 

travelled on jour way to and from your work on the moun- 
tains? 

Ans. — I know of such a place ; it was on the edge of the 
woods. 

Int. 12. — Were not your rides across the plains generally 
in the summer season? 

Ans. — Yes, sir. 

Int. 13. — Is not the summer, as a general rule, in that sec- 
tion of the country almost entirely free from rains ? 

Ans, — Yes, sir. 

Int. 14. — What lands on the Nisqually plains have you ever 
seen cultivated two years in succession? If you have seen 
any, state where it was, and on whose claim. 

Ans. — Judging from the old enclosures, I think I saw land 
that had been cultivated two years near Fort Nisqually. There 
was also a point about two-thirds up that bore the marks of 
having been cultivated two years in succession. 

Int. 15. — Are you prepared to say that this land which you 
speak of had not been in cultivation, so far as you know any- 
thing about it, for twenty years, as well as the two you speak of. 

Ans. — I can only say that I think it would be like lunacy 
for any man to attempt to cultivate this land for any number 
of years without using such facilities for keeping up its fer- 
tility as are not usually within the reach of agriculturists. 

Int. 16. — Have you ever cultivated any land upon these 
plains, or have you ever stopped to examine any that has been 
turned up by the plough? 

Ans. — I never cultivated any of that land; but I have on 
several occasions examined it when turned up by the plough. 

Int. 17. — State one of those occasions, and where it was, 
how long you were off your horse, and how much land you 
walked over. 

Ans. — I stopped at the house of a man near Montgomery's, 
and also at another place probably a mile and a half farther 
down. I may have spent several hours at either place, though 
I cannot recall exactly how long the time was, or the quantity 
of ground I went over; I only remember the general impres- 
sion left on my mind of the character of the soil. 



307 

Int. 18. — Did you see and notice the crops borne on these 
pieces of land you saw ploughed? 

Arts. — I don't know that I ever saw any crop cut from 
those pieces of land, though I saw grain growing. 

Int. 19. — Were you able to distinguish between the cattle 
of the Hudson's Bay Company and those of the settlers, 
when you saw cattle feeding on the plains? 

Ans.— As a general rule, the Hudson's Bay cattle were in 
a wild state, while those of the settlers were not. I don't 
recall seeing any herds of cattle belonging to the settlers in 
that vicinity, and noticing the difference; that those cattle of 
the settlers that I noticed there were not numerous enough to 
be in herds, were generally work cattle. 

Int. 20.— Did you ever see any herds of cattle in crossing 
the plains? 

Ans. — Yes, sir. 

Int. 21. — Do you know whether these were cattle of the 
Company, or cattle of the settlers? 

Ans. — I could not say from my own knowledge. 

Int. 22.— Is not what you said about the cattle on the 
plains, and the difference between the Company's and the 
settlers' cattle there, derived from what has been told you? 

Ans. — -No. I have heard the statement of that difference 
made probably a dozen times, and my own slight observation 
confirms the opinion generally expressed in relation to the 
difference between cattle domesticated and those running 
wild. 

Int. 23. — Were you ever chased or surrounded by any 
band of cattle, or chased or attacked by any single animal 
on these plains? 

Ans. — On some of the small prairies off the ordinary lines 
of travel, where I had been frequently warned that it was 
dangerous to pass through, passing through on one or two 
occasions, while I was never absolutely attacked, or pursued, 
or surrounded, there were such demonstrations made of attack 
that I considered it prudent to get out of the way before an 
attack was made. 

Int. 24. — In speaking of the leave granted you by Dr. Tol- 



308 

mie to take cattle at $5 a head, was not this during the year 
1853, and while you were working upon the road across the 
mountains, sustained by the voluntary contributions of the 
settlers and others on Puget's Sound? 

Ans. — I think not. I think it was a proposition by Dr. 
Tolmie to rue, as a contractor to build the military road for 
the Government of the United States. While building the 
road by voluntary contributions from the citizens, I think I 
got no beef on these conditions from Dr. Tolmie. I think 
Dr. Tolmie contributed an amount in cash, in common with 
other residents. 

Int. 25. — Was this proposition of Dr. Tolmie you speak of 
in answer to Interrogatory 13, made to you in person by Dr. 
Tolmie? 

Ans. — I think it was, but I am not positive of it; but I 
think I have, among the other vouchers for building that 
road, Dr. Tolmie's receipt for the cattle. I remember dis- 
tinctly that he accepted my own statement of the number 
killed in settlement. 

Int. 26. — By whom were these cattle shot for you? 

Ans. — By an employe of my own. I cannot recollect his 
name, but I have at home a list of the names of all the em- 
ployes affixed to a contract regulating their wages. 

Int. 27. — Was not this contract entered into, and the 
names of these employes signed to it, in the year 1854? 

Ans. — I think it was in the spring of 1854. 

Int. 28. — Are you certain that you received no beef from 
Dr. Tolmie in the year 1853, under this agreement you 
speak of? 

Ans. — I think not, but I am not positive. 

Int. 29. — Did you buy any horses for either of your expe- 
ditions? 

Ans. — Not that I remember. 

Int. 30. — What pack animals did you use in the summer 
of 1853? 

Ans. — Pack animals furnished by the commandant at Fort 
Steilacoom. 

Int. 31. — At what time were you at Fort Walla-Walla? 



309 

Arts. — In July, 1854, I think. 

Int. 32. — Was the offer from Piu-piu-mox-mox made to you 
in July, 1854? 
Arts. — No. 

Int. 33. — Did Piu-piu-mox-mox ever make to you in person 
the offer mentioned in your answer to interrogatory 20 ; and 
if so, when was it, and how many were you to buy? 

Ans. — No, sir; the offer was made to the firm of which I 
was a partner. The offer was made in 1854. Our purpose 
was to have purchased about five hundred. 

Int. 34. — What firm do you mean in your answer, and in 
what business were you concerned? 

Ans. — The firm of Allen & Ensign, working under a char- 
ter granted by the Territorial Legislature, in ferrying across 
the Columbia river at Walla-Walla. 

Int. 35. — Do you know anything more of this offer by 
Piu-piu-mox-mox except by hearsay and report? 

Ans. — I know it as a man knows the business transactions 
of the firm in which he is engaged, from the record of his 
books, or the statement of his partner in business. In this 
case I had no reason to doubt the statement made by my 
partner, and was preparing, in company with some others, to 
make a purchase of five hundred, and take them to the States. 

Int. 36. — Were not the persons with whom you conversed 
about timber, and going into the milling business, generally 
resident at Olympia or the vicinity? 

Ans. — No, sir; they were persons in different localities. 

Int. 37. — Did you not propose to erect your mill, if you 
did build one, near Olympia? 

Ans. — I was prepared to build it where I could find the 
most money-making locality, though I preferred Olympia, if 
it would have paid better than any other point. 

Int. 38. — Was not the cutting of lumber upon the Sound at 
that time confined chiefly to the production of fir lumber? 

Ans. — Yes, sir. 

Int. 39. — In all the conversations had about the business in 
connection with lumber, was not the fir the only tree thought 
of, or mentioned. 



310 

Ans. — No, sir. 

Int. 40. — What other tree was mentioned? 

Ans. — Cedar. 

Examination-in- (Thief Resumed. 

Int. 1. — Where was your residence in Washington Territory? 

Ans. — During the whole time on my claim, about only on 
necessary business. 

Int. 2. — From what time were you under contract to build 
the road from Fort Steilacoom to Fort Walla-Walla? 

Ans. — The contract was signed, I think, in the winter of 
1853; the work was commenced on it in the spring of 1854. 

Int. 3. — How many cattle do you estimate that you received 
from Dr. Tolmie at $5 a head, after you began to work on this 
road in the spring of 1854? 

Ans,- — I can't remember exactly; I should judge between 
thirty and fifty. 

dross-Examination Resumed. 

Int. 1. — Was the contract with Dr. Tolmie in writing? 

Ans. — I am not certain ; if it was, it is among my papers 
at home. 

Int. 2. — Did you ever have any verbal contract with Dr. 
Tolmie on this subject? 

Ans. — I don't distinctly remember, but my impression is 
that I had. 

Int. 3. — Did the proposition come from you to Dr. Tolmie,, 
or from Dr. Tolmie to you ? 

Ans. — My impression is that it was Dr. Tolmie's own propo- 
sition. 

Int. 4. — Where did he make it to you? 

Ans. — My impression is not distinct, but my impression 
is that the proposition was made to me by Dr. Tolmie, in a 
conversation in the fort. 

Int. 5. — Will you now state that this proposition was not 
made to you in 1853, while you were working on the road 



311 

under subscription, and that it was not made by Dr. Tolmie 
as a part of his gift to the road, and to enable you and those 
who were with you working to assist the emigration through, 
to live more cheaply while engaged in the work? 

Ans. — I do not think these were the circumstances under 
which the proposition was made. 

Int. 6.— Was any beef shot under this agreement in 1853? 

Ans. — -I don't remember any being made in 1853. 

Int. 7. — Did you cause any beef to be shot on the plains 
in 1853? 

Ans. — I don't remember having done so. 

Int. 8. — Who brought the beef to you in the mountains 
in 1853? 

Ans. — I don't remember getting beef in 1853. 

Int. 9. — How many men did you have in your party in 
1853? 

Ans. — About thirty. 

Int. 10. — On what did they live? 

Ans. — On beans, pork, &c. I don't recall any beef in 
1853. 

Int. 11. — Did not Lieut. Arnold talk with you about 
obtaining beef from Dr. Tolmie? 

Ans. — Yes, sir. 

Int. 12. — Can you now state whether the proposition you 
speak of, or contract, was made with yourself or Lieut. 
Arnold? 

Ans. — My impression is that it was with me, but I am not 
positive. 

Int. 13. — Is not your recollection rather confused about 
the whole matter, between what was said to you by Lieut. 
Arnold, and what you think was said to you by Dr. Tolmie? 

Ans. — I am positive that a conversation with Lieut. Arnold 
on that subject; distinctly recollect the conversation. Lieut. 
Arnold had no connection with the military road until after 
the work was accepted by Captain McClellan. This would 
confirm my impression that the contract with Dr. Tolmie for 
beef related to the time when I was a contractor for the 
Government under Lieut. Arnold. 



312 

The counsel for the United States reserves the right to 
annex to this deposition a certified copy of the receipt of Dr. 
Tolmie, alluded to in the witness' answer to cross-interrogatory 
25, if this receipt shall hereafter be found and authenticated. 

Edward Jay Allen. 

Sworn and subscribed before rne this twenty-ninth day of 
May, A. D. 1867. 

N. Callan, 
Notary Public. 



In the matter of the Claim of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
Company against the United States. 

Deposition of George Gibes, witness examined on behalf of 
the United States, at Washington city, this third day of 
May, 1867. • 

Testimony oe George Gibbs. 

Int. 1. — State your name, occupation, and residence. 

Ans. — George Gibbs, Clerk to the Commissioner on the 
part of the United States on this Commission; residence at 
present in Washington city, D. C. 

Int. 2. — What have been your duties as Clerk to the Com- 
mission? 

Ans. — I have been in charge of the office, and, in addition 
to the usual clerical duties, have pointed out to the counsel 
for the United States persons whom I knew to be acquainted 
with the subject in controversy, informing him of the matters 
with which they were severally acquainted. 

Int. 3. — Is your salary a fixed amount, and not at all con- 
tingent? 

Ans. — It is a per diem allowance, fixed by law. 

Int. 4. — Have you any* pecuniary interest in the decision 
of the questions before the Commission? 

Ans. — None whatever. 



313 

Int. 5. — Are you acquainted with the character of the tract 
of country in Washington Territory, lying on Puget's Sound, 
known as the Nisqually Plains? 

Ans. — I am well acquainted with it. I first went there 
early in the spring of 1854, and lived there, with intervals 
of absence, for three years. During that time I traveled the 
plains on foot and horseback frequently, and in almost every 
direction. 

Int. 6. — What was your occupation during these three 
years ? 

Ans. — I was in the employment of the United States during 
most of that time, either in making reconnoissances for mili- 
tary roads, or acting as interpreter, and other similar capaci- 
ties at Fort Steilacoom. I also farmed to a certain extent in 
the neighborhood of the garrison. I assisted in a survey of a 
road from Fort Steilacoom across the Cascade mountains, by 
way of the Natchess pass, examining two routes for the same. 
I also surveyed a road from Steilacoom to-the Cowlitz river, 
examining two separate routes for that purpose. Also, sub- 
sequently, I was in the employment of the Northwestern Bound- 
ary Survey, as geologist, and in that capacity examined and 
made a report on these plains, with other parts of the Terri- 
tory. 

Int. 7. — Will you please describe the general character of 
these plains? 

Ans. — The Nisqually Plains, so called, embrace a tract of 
about 160,000 acres, lying between the Nisqually and Puyallup 
rivers, on the southeast and northwest, between Puget's 
Sound on the west, and the forest extending to the Cascade 
mountains on the east. Taken as a body, it may be described 
as a pretty level prairie, elevated from 200 to 300 feet above 
tide-water, and rising in low benches, as it recedes from the 
Sound. It is skirted by forest, both on the rivers and 
towards the Sound. It is interspersed with small lakes, belts 
of timber, swamps, and rocky eminences covered with fir 
timber, and is watered by several streams. The whole belongs 
to. that formation which geologists call drift, and is composed 
of boulder stones and gravel, mixed with sand, and inter- 



314 

stratified with beds of clay. The soil is merely superficial, 
except on the immediate waters of some of the streams, and 
in the swamps which filled the hollows formerly occupied by 
lakes. 

Int. 8. — What is the general character of this soil? 

Ans. — Except as mentioned, along the borders of the 
streams or in the neighborhood of water, it is dry and sterile. 
The only vegetation, excepting weeds and low bushes, is the 
grass known as bunch grass, which forms no sod, but grows 
in separate tufts. The soil is so porous that, after one or two 
crops, it leaches through, leaving only gravel on the surface, 
and is beside so thoroughly exhausted that it will produce 
nothing but the sorrel which the sheep have disseminated 
almost everywhere they have ranged. 

Int. 9. — Whether or no you have had any particular knowl- 
edge of the value of these plains for agriculture? 

Ans. — I had occasion, in the spring of 1854, to examine a 
considerable part of them, with a view to selecting a claim 
for myself, to which I was entitled under the donation act, 
giving me a right to 320 acres wherever I might select it. 
The nearest point to the town of Steilacoom which I could 
find fit for settlement, was situated about five miles from the 
water upon Steilacoom creek. At that time but one other 
plain, excepting that occupied by the garrison, had been 
taken between the Sound and the place I selected, and that 
was taken by Mr. Bird for a saw-mill. But few settlers 
were then on the plains, and those mostly discharged Hud- 
son's Bay Company servants, or soldiers whose term of ser- 
vice had expired. I had then a wide selection. I took up a 
tract of 320 acres on this creek, laying it out in as irregular a 
form as the act permitted, in order to secure the best ground, 
taking in both sides of the creek, and including a small 
quantity of muck land. I found, after experimenting, that 
none except the last-mentioned could be cultivated with 
any profit. This made a very good garden patch. The best 
portion of the land in the swale I sowed in wheat. The first 
year it produced a very good crop, say from twenty-five to 
thirty bushels. The next year it did not pay for harvesting. 



315 

I also tried oats and rye, sowing the rye on the upland; it 
made very good stalks, but the heads did not fill. The oats 
I was obliged to cut before they were ripe, on account of the 
grasshoppers, which, during some years, are very destructive. 
Of potatoes and peas I got very fair crops; but, finding that 
the gravel rose to the surface wherever the ground was 
broken, and that I should ruin the whole place, I gave up all 
idea of cultivating it, and sowed a considerable part of it 
with mixed timothy and clover seed. These grasses grew 
pretty well in the swale, but while I was there had formed 
no sod. The same was pretty much the experience of my 
neighbors. I planted an orchard of some two hundred trees, 
chiefly apple and pear, but it did not come to anything. In 
very good situations these fruits may be cultivated, but not 
to much advantage. Indian corn, tomatoes, melons, squashes, 
and pumpkins, and in general those vegetables which suffer 
from early frosts, cannot be raised with success. Indian corn 
never ripens. 

Int. 10. — Whether or no you ever built a house, or made 
any permanent improvements on your place? 

(Mr. Lander objects to this question, as irrelevant.) 

Ans. — I built a small house, consisting of two rooms, a 
kitchen, and a wood-shed, and also a barn, and put nearly a 
mile of fencing altogether on the place. The total cost was 
something over $1,000. 

Int. 11. — What has been done with your claim since you 
left it in 1856? 

Ans. — It was occupied, I think, for about a year by Mr. 
D. E. Lane, who had previously cultivated it for me. When 
he went to his own place, he left it in charge of another per- 
son to take care of for whatever he could get off of it. The 
place was for sale some time, and I finally disposed of it last 
spring for $450 in gold, or about $600 in currency, and was 
very glad to get rid of it. 

(All the above testimony, in regard to the value of Mr. 
Gibbs' farm and the improvements thereon, objected to as 
irrelevant.) 



316 

Int. 12. — What do you know of the garden of the military 
post? 

Ans. — The garrison had a garden four or five miles from 
the post, upon another branch of Steilacoom creek, a mile or 
so beyond my place. It consisted of a narrow strip of land 
in a swale upon this creek. It was naturally rich, black 
earth, with some gravel interspersed, and was kept manured 
to the highest degree with stable manure from the garrison. 
Here very fine crops of vegetables were raised, but the place 
was so exceptional in quality that an adjoining settler was 
constantly attempting to bring it within his claim, and it was 
consequently never left without some one upon it. The 
reason for taking this place was that no other like it could be 
found within any reasonable distance. The claim upon which 
the barracks themselves were situated had been worn out 
prior to its going there, and could not be claimed. 

Int. 13. — What do you know of the character of the land 
immediately around Fort Nisqually, the post of the Puget's 
Sound Agricultural Company? 

Ans. — Close to the fort there was a garden, on the creek, 
where the ground was very good, where some flowering plants 
as well as vegetables were cultivated. The most of the land 
from there over what is called the American Plain, on the 
map now before me, as far as Steilacoom barracks, however, 
was dry and incapable of cultivation. The neighborhood of 
the fort itself was little else than a bed of red sorrel, and 
that weed prevailed over much of the adjoining district, to 
the almost entire destruction of the grass. The immediate 
neighborhood of Fort Nisqually seemed to have been for- 
merly cropped, but abandoned from its sterility. 

Int. 14. — What do you estimate to be the value of the tract 
of land you have described as the Nisqually Plains? 

Ans.— One-fifth of the amount I consider to be absolutely 
without value; for the remainder, taking the whole, I should 
be very sorry to give the minimum Government price. 

Int. 15. — What part of these plains were taken up when you 
went there in 1854, and by whom, and under what act? 

Ans. — In the spring of 1854, there were very few white 



317 

inhabitants on the plains. Those were mostly either dis- 
charged servants of the Company, or soldiers whose term of 
service had expired. These persons had selected the best 
situations not occupied by the Puget's Sound Company. 
Muck Plain, in particular, was occupied by a small colony of 
Hudson's Bay Company's employes, and other former British 
subjects. These employes nearly all declared their intention 
to become citizens of the United States, and avail themselves 
of the privileges of the donation act. On the Canadian 
Plain there were also some Frenchmen. On the two branches 
of the Steilacoom creek the Americans predominated. All, 
of course, held under the same act. 

Int. 16. — Did you ever know any of this land to be pre- 
empted? 

Ans. — Never. 

Int. 17. — Did you ever know any of it to be sold? 

Ans. — I remember of no sale excepting my own. 

Int. 18. — What fractional part of this tract was settled on? 

Ans. — In 1854 the amount was very limited. In the fall of 
that year a few emigrants came in over the mountains, and, I 
think, some others in the succeeding year. Of these, a num- 
ber, after looking around, went elsewhere. I have known 
several claims to be abandoned after they had been taken up. 
I should think that, even as late as 1858, less than one-half 
of the plains were claimed by individuals, and much less than 
that enclosed. In fact, for grazing purposes, it would not 
pay to enclose them. 

Int. 19. — How much of this tract was occupied by the 
Puget's Sound Agricultural Company? 

Ans. — I know of but two farms which the Company held— 
one a short distance east of Fort Nisqually, the other, called 
Kithlow's Station, occupied as a sheep farm, and the resi- 
dence of the chief shepherd. They had two or three more 
sheep stations, where the different classes of sheep were kept 
by servants. At this time they had apparently given up 
what is stated to have been once their practice of moving 
their sheep corrals from point to point, but now kept them at 
stations, and drove them out to pasture from thence. 



318 

Int. 20. — What would you estimate to be the number of oak 
trees on this tract, and what was the quality of the oak? 

Ans. — It is impossible to average them by the acre, as they 
do not grow equally scattered, but are generally in clumps 
here and there, with considerable intervals entirely destitute 
of them. On my place of 320 acres, there were two clumps* 
of from ten to a dozen each, and some scattering ones, in all 
not over three dozen, according to the best of my recollec- 
tion. I should think this was a fair average of the whole. 
The quality was inferior, the boles were rarely long enough 
to saw into plank, and the wood brash. These trees were 
chiefly used for firewood. A few of them might have been 
used for farming purposes, as repairing carts, &c, and also 
for the knees of boats and scows. They had no market value, 
settlers usually helping themselves from the common lands. 

Int. 21. — Describe Fort Nisqually. 

Ans. — Fort Nisquaily, like most of the other posts of the 
Company, consists of several buildings enclosed within a 
stockade of logs about twelve feet high, and pointed at the 
top. The stockade was defended by two bastions, at trans- 
verse angles. Within were a warehouse and several other 
buildings, used as stores, &c. These were in a very dilapi- 
dated condition, and had been of very inferior quality from 
the beginning. About 1854 or 1855, Dr. Tolmie, then the 
Chief Trader in charge, erected a new dwelling. There were 
several buildings outside of the enclosure, such as a dairy 
and some others of which I have no distinct recollection. 
On the beach, under the bluff, a warehouse of some size. 

Int. 22. — What was the value of these buildings ? 

Ans. — With the exception of Dr. Tolmie's house, and what- 
ever advantages might be derived from the stockade, I do not 
think that any valuation. could have been put upon the post. 
Nobody would have purchased the other buildings unless for 
a nominal sum, and for a temporary use. As regards the 
warehouse, I cannot give any opinion. As to the other out- 
side buildings, I have no recollection further than that there 
were such. 

Int. 23. — Whether or not there were any cattle on the 



319 

Nisqually Plains from the year 1854 to 1857; and if so, what 
was their character? 

Ans.— There were bands of cattle there belonging to the 
Puget's Sound Company and to citizens. The cattle belong- 
ing to the Company, without being " wild cattle," were very 
wild. They had sprung from a mixture of English cattle 
with the wild Spanish stock, This was measurably the case 
with the cattle belonging to citizens, but they had a greater 
proportion of domesticated American cattle. The Company's 
cattle were so wild that, in butchering them, they were driven 
up by men on horseback, and shot. During my time I never 
saw any herding or branding of these cattle, except perhaps 
in the case of cows and calves. 

Int. 24. — -Whether or not these cattle are still on the plains? 

Ans. — I imagine very few, if any, as, before I left the 
Sound, I heard that the Company had transferred all their 
remaining sheep and cattle to Vancouver's Island. 

(So much of the answer as professes to be founded on hear- 
say objected to.) 

Int. 25.— What do you know of the removal of the cattle? 

Ans. — I know that the Company, for a considerable time 
previous, had been in the habit of shipping large quantities 
of cattle on the hoof, as well as in beef, to Victoria, for the 
supply of the town and the British squadron, as I supposed. 
They also sold beef to the troops at Fort Steilacoom and to 
the neighboring settlements. * 

Int. 26. — -What do you know of the value of these cattle? 

Ans. — -The value of the wild cattle was very small, as I 
know that Dr. Tolmie offered to myself and others, whom he 
could rely upon, the privilege of shooting cattle at $5 a head 
on certain conditions, of which, I think, one was that we 
should report to him as speedily as possible the place where 
the animal was killed, in order that he might get the hide, or 
forward it to him ourselves. 

(Statemants of Dr. Tolmie objected to.) 

Int. 27. — What do you know of the character of the sheep, 

and how the Company disposed of them? 

Ans. — The sheep were small, but of excellent quality. The 
22 P 



320 

Company butchered them, and sold the mutton at the garri- 
son and in the neighboring settlements. They never would 
sell any alive to persons living on the plains. The increase 
beyond what they butchered were therefore sent away. A 
large number were shipped to San Juan Island in December, 
1853. Dr. Tolmie drove another large band into Oregon. 
Other bands were shipped to Vancouver's Island, and, if I 
mistake not, to California also. 

Int. 28. — What do you know of any mills on Steilacoom 
creek? 

Arts. — The first mill built on Steilacoom creek was a flour 
mill, erected about half a mile north of the garrison by Mr. 
Thomas M. Chambers. Afterwards a Mr. Bird built a saw 
mill a mile or a mile and a half above him. 

Int. 29. — Was there water enough in the creek to run the 
two mills? 

Ans. — As the fall of water in the creek was very consider- 
able, the same water, although its volume was not great during 
the latter part of the summer and the autumn, could have been 
worked over several times, had it not been for the porous nature 
of the soil, which rendered it next to impossible to make a dam 
tight. So much was this the case, that much of the water from 
the dam of Bird's mill escaped and found its way a distance of 
three-quarters of a mile, to the head of a ravine emptying 
into the creek below Chambers' mill, from which the garrison 
was supplied." What was originally a spring became a heavy 
stream. Mr. Chambers several times complained to me of the 
injury, and spoke of commencing a suit against Bird. 

(Mr. Chambers' statements objected to.) 

Cross- Examination Resumed, May 4, 1867. 

Int. 1. — At what time, giving the day and month as well as 
you can, did you begin your employment on the United 
States Boundary Commission? 

Ans.— In July, 1857. 

Int. 2. — Was not that Boundary Commission employed in 
ascertaining the boundary line between the United States 



321 

^nd Great Britain, In the Straits of Fuca and the Gulf of 
Georgia, and the position of the 49th parallel between the 
western shore of the Continent and the Rocky Mountains? 

Ans. — Yes, sir; the boundary survey was engaged on that 
business. 

Int. 3. — What other duties on that Commission were you 
engaged in than those of a geologist? Were you not, among 
other things, engaged in making a vocabulary of the language 
of the Indians on the islands and mainland near the 49th 
parallel? 

Ans. — Yes, sir, I was so engaged, though not officially. 

Int. 4. — What period of time, previous to your engagement 
in the Boundary Commission, have you devoted to the study 
of the theory of geology ? 

Ans. — It is impossible to say at this time, as my studies 
have been pursued at intervals, as opportunity afforded. I 
had studied geology before I left the States, and I had been 
previously employed as geologist to Captain McClellan's 
expedition on the Pacific Railroad survey. 

Int. 6. — Were you not admitted to the bar in the city of 
New York; and did you not eontinue in your profession as a 
lawyer there, and as a writer, until you went to Oregon, some 
time in 1849? 

Ans. — -I finished my law studies, and was admitted to the 
bar in the city of New York. Nominally I continued in my 
profession as a lawyer until I left for Oregon; but having 
very little taste for the profession, I passed much of my time 
in other pursuits. 

Int. 1. — Were you not, shortly after your arrival in Ore- 
gon, made deputy collector of the port of Astoria, and did 
you not continue in that position until your employment in 
the expedition of the then Captain McClellan? 

Ans. — I was employed as deputy clerk and inspector, which 
is the legal name of the office, acting as deputy collector 
during the year 1850, until the spring of 1851. In the spring 
of 1851, I served for some time as commissary to' a commis- 
sion appointed to treat with the Indians of the Willamette 
Valley; thence I went down to California, and accompanied 



322 

an expedition from the bay of San Francisco through the 
Coast mountains, to Klamath river, and up that river to the 
Shaste valley. Returning to San Francisco, I prepared a 
map of that portion of the country passed over, and a gen- 
eral report on the same. 1 spent the next succeeding year 
in the northern mines of California, In the winter of 1852 7 
about Christmas, I returned to Oregon and qualified as col- 
lector of the port, having been appointed to that office in the 
meantime. I held that office six months, and was removed 
on the change of administration. I then joined the expedi- 
tion under the then Captain, since Major General McClellan. 

Int. 8. — In your answer to Interrogatory 9, you stated that 
you took up your claim in the spring of 1854. At what time 
did you begin your actual residence upon it? 

Ans. — I took the claim early in the spring of 1854. Some 
time elapsed, say from one to two months, before I moved on 
to it, as I had to put up a house, make some fencing, and other 
preliminary improvements. 

Int. 9.— Do you think that you are as accurate in the 
statement that you took up this claim in the spring of 1854, 
and went on to it personally within two months, to live, as 
you are in the other statements made in the other parts of 
your deposition? 

Ans. — I am positive. 

Int. 10. — How long did you continue to reside personally 
on this claim? 

Ans. — I consider that my personal residence on the claim 
continued during the whole time of my stay upon Puget's 
Sound, that is, until the summer of 1858. I have already 
referred, in my direct examination, to occasional and tempo- 
rary absences. Thus, in the summer of 1854, I surveyed the 
road from Fort Steilacoom to the Cascades, returning to my 
house to make a map of the route. So, also, in subsequent 
seasons I was absent on other expeditions, but, during these 
absences I always had persons on the place to take care of it* 
and if, at any time previous to my leaving the Sound, I had 
been out of occupation, I should have returned to it as my 
home. 



323 

Int. 11. — How many days, weeks, or months did you reside 
on and occupy the claim you mention, from the first day you 
went to live upon it until the day you left to survey the road 
you mention ? 

Ans. — Really I do not recollect I think that our party 
started about the first week in July. 

Int. 12. — -Did you not pass the winter of 1854-5 at the gar- 
rison of Fort Steilacoom, so called ? 

Ans. — No ; I was in there from day to day, and usually 
passed Sunday and Sunday nights there, but I passed most of 
the time and usually slept at my own house. 

Int. 13. — Did you personally live on the claim in the sum- 
mer of 1855? 

Ans. — Only a portion of the summer. I was employed by 
Lieut. Derby, topographical engineers, to survey the routes 
for a military road from Fort Steilacoom to Fort Vancouver, 
and was absent on that duty. 

Int. 14. — Were you upon this place personally, to live upon 
It, during the fall of 1855, the winter of 1855 and 1856, or 
the spring, summer, and fall of 1856? 

Ans. — I was on the place only for a very brief period in 
the fall of 1855. I then went over to Vancouver on business; 
returned, I think, in December. The Indian war had then 
broken out, and a family had come in from the Puyallup river 
and occupied my house. It was the same family that had pre- 
viously taken care of it. I was employed at the garrison 
during the rest of the winter, making a topographical map o£ 
the country, and also acting as interpreter for the post. In 
the spring of 1856 I was again employed in the survey of a 
portion of the military road from Astoria to the Twallatin 
plains, in Oregon. I then returned to the Sound, and shortly 
afterwards went down to Fort Townshend, where I was em- 
ployed as quartermaster and commissary clerk to the post. 
There I remained until the arrival of the Boundary Commis- 
sion, about the beginning of July, 1856. Within that time, 
between the spring of 1854 and the summer of 1856, 1 actually 
and bona fide inhabited my house, according to a note-book 
which I kept at the time — ten months, at different intervals. 



324 

Int. 15. — Did you, after the family you mentioned, took up 
its residence in your house, when you found them in its occu- 
pation in December, 1855, until the spring of 1857, when you 
say, in answer to Interrogatory 5, your residence on the Nis- 
qually plains ceased, ever pass one single night at the house 
upon your claim ? If so. give as near as you can the date 
of it? 

Ans. — I wish to make a correction in my answer to Inter- 
rogatory 5. When I mentioned having resided on the claim 
for three years from the spring of 1854, I was thinking the 
boundary survey first came out in 1857. I should have stated 
two years. In reply to the question, I think it probable that 
I never did pass a night there. The family remained until all 
danger arising out of the Indian war had passed over. Mr.. 
D. E. Lane, who had charge of the house at all times in my 
absence, then put another person in his place, and returned to* 
his own claim. Whenever I was in Steilacoom, however, I 
used to ride out there, give directions as to what I wanted 
done, and get my dinner. 

Int. 16. — Did you ever pay into the Land Office any money 
on account of this claim ? 

Ans. — No ; I took it as a donation claim, and proved it up 
as such. 

Int. 17. — Did you not notify that your residence on your 
claim commenced on the 16th day of February, 1855? 

Ans. — Very likely. I put in a second notification in 1855,. 
on altering the boundaries of my claim, and, I presume, thought 
it necessary to redate'the time of occupation. 

Int. 18. — Was not this second notification made under oath,, 
and can you not now be positive as to the time you then swore 
your occupation of, and residence upon, this claim commenced? 

Ans. — When, in the spring of 1854, I took that claim I 
necessarily put in a notification, and made oath to the time at 
which my occupation commenced. Early in 1855, as I believe r 
I changed the boundaries of that claim, in order to make them 
correspond with the line of my next neighbor ; of course I had 
to put in a second notification, and verify it by a second oath.. 
As 1 had not previously occupied the whole of this tract, I may 



325 

have assigned the date of my second notification as the begin- 
ning of my residence. 

Int. 19. — Did you swear in the notification of 1855 that you 
took this donation claim on the 16th of January, 1855? 

Ans. — That is more than I can tell you, without seeing the 
notification. 

Int. 20. — Can you not now recollect a date so important as 
that, on which you took possession of a farm of 320 acres, and 
laid the foundation of any title you might have to the land? 

Ans. — No, sir. 

Int. 21. — Will you now swear that on the 16th day of Feb- 
ruary, 1855, you were upon w T hat you call your land claim on 
the Nisqually plains, and did then commence your residence 
and occupation thereon ? 

Ans. — -Iwill now swear that at that date, as and before and 
after, I actually resided upon that place. Whether I was upon 
that land that particular day, or at Steilacoom, or at Olympia, 
or travelling around the country generally, I cannot say. 

Int. 22. — State when you do consider that your occupation 
of that land, as a donation claim, actually commenced — giving 
the date, as near as your recollection at the present time 
enables you to do. 

Ans. — My occupation of the original claim, taken in the 
spring of 1854 — wdnch claim was quadrangular — dated from 
that spring. When, in the subsequent spring, I changed the 
lines, conformably to those of my neighbor, I included six 
angles on the form of the tract, and, in filing a notification of 
the new claim, I presume I dated the occupation of that from 
the date of resurvey. 

Int. 23. — Did your occupation and residence upon the claim 
which you sold begin on the 16th of February, 1855? 

Ans. — I have already stated that I know nothing about the 
date of the 16th of February, 1855. 

Int. 24. — State, if you can, when you did commence the 
occupation of and residence upon that donation claim which 
you say in your examination-in-chief that you sold. 

Ans. — For all the purposes pertinent to this Commission, as 
I conceive, I took that claim in the spring of 1854; as I did 



326 

then in fact take a claim there embracing the greater part of 
the land which I afterwards occupied. So far as regards the 
"business of the Land Office, however, my claim should have 
dated from the time of altering its original boundaries. 

Int. 25.— When did you notify the United States, through 
the proper officers of its Land Office, that you had begun your 
occupation of, and residence upon, the precise tract of land 
which in your examination you have stated that you after- 
wards sold? 

Ans. — I presume, some time in the spring of 1855. 

Int. 26. — Can you not at the present time give this date with 
any more certainty? 

Ans. — Not from memory. It is probable that among my 
papers I may find a copy of the notification, a parol proof. 

Int. 27. — Have you not within the last two years renewed ? 
under oath, the statement containing the exact date which you 
had before sworn to as the tfrne when you commenced your 
occupation and residence upon the specified claim which you 
afterwards say you sold ? 

Ans. — I filed the final proof at the time that I sold the 
claim in the spring of last year, and I presume that that con- 
tained an oath showing the date of commencement of the occu- 
pation. 

Cross-Examination resumed May 27, 1867. 

Witness desires to make the following corrections in his 
answers to his direct and cross-examination : 

At that time I had not looked over my notes, and, on since 
examining them, find that I was in error about the date of my 
employment on the Boundary Survey. It was in July, 1857, 
and not 1856, that I joined the Commission, and, instead of 
leaving the Sound in 1858, I did not start for the mountains 
until the summer of 1859. 

In answer to Interrogatory 14, I find that it was in the fall, 
not in the spring, of 1856 that I was employed on the Astoria 
road, and in the winter of 1856-7 that I was at Fort Townshend. 

In my answer to Cross-Interrogatory 15, I made a miscor- 



327 

rection of a previous answer, which was in itself correct, in 
regard to the same date of the boundary survey. 

Int. 28. — What do you mean by final proof, and what, in 
substance, did you prove before the officers of the Land Office? 

Arts. — Such proof of residence and occupation as is required 
by the act generally known as the Donation Act, in order to 
enable me to obtain a title for the land. 

Int. 29. — Were your notifications and the final proof received 
by the Register and Receiver at the Land Office of the L^nited 
States and placed on file without objection? 

Ans. — The notification was received without objection, and 
put on file. With regard to the final proof, it was forwarded 
from here to my agent at Oiympia, and as I have never heard 
of any objection, I presume it was received without any. 

Int. 30. — Were not these officers aware of the fact that the 
donation claim, notified upon and proved up by you, was upon 
the land of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company? 

Ans. — I think it is probable they knew it was upon the land 
claimed by the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company; but, as 
that claim had never been acknowledged by the United States, 
and was not generally admitted to be a just or equitable one 
by its officers in Washington Territory, or the citizens there, 
to any further extent than its farms and enclosures. I presume 
they had no option in the matter. 

Int. 31. — Have you not requested the gentleman taking 
down this deposition to underscore the word claimed, in your 
answer, for the purpose of having it italicised when that answer 
shall be printed? 

Ans. — Yes ; for the purpose of distinguishing between prop- 
erty and the claim to property. 

Int. 32. — Do you think, as a witness in this cause, it is 
necessary for you to settle bv Your testimony the lea;al rights 
of one of the parties to this proceeding? 

Ans. — When a question is put in such a form that its an- 
swer, without explanation, would involve an admission, I think 
it right to make one. 

Int. 33. — Did the register and receiver of the Land Office 



328 

issue to you, or to your agent, a certificate of your right to 
the donation claim as to which you testify? 

Ans. — I never received one. Whether my agent did, I do 
not know. 

Int. 34. — Was not this claim taken w T ithin the boundaries 
of the lands called and known to you to be the lands of the 
Puget's Sound Agricultural Company? 

Ans. — It was within the boundaries of the land which it 
pretended to claim. 

Int. 35. — Was not this fact known to you at the time you 
took this claim? 

Ans. — Perfectly. 

Int. 36. — Were you not notified verbally that you were a 
trespasser on the lands of the Company? 

Ans. — Yes; Dr. Tolmie told me one day, soon after I went 
there, in a good-humored sort of way, that I was squatting 
on his ground. 

Int. 37. — Did you not see a published notification notify- 
ing all persons against taking up claims there, or trespassing 
on the lands of the Company? 

Ans. — I don't remember seeing such printed notification. 

Int. 38. — Locate by a cross, if you can, upon this map now 
shown to you, and which is in evidence, the situation of the 
land which you took up and sold. 

Ans. — I have made a cross on map B, marked by me "G. 
G." in the corner, on the Winter Stream, so called, running 
into Steilacoom river, which I believe was the place. 

Int. 39. — Did you not take Dr. Tolmie's statement to be a 
positive and certain notification to you that you were a tres- 
passer on the Company's lands? 

Ans. — I presume that Dr. Tolmie wished to save whatever 
rights he might have by such a notification. 

Int. 40. — Do you not think that your acquaintance with 
the officers of the garrison, and your known connection with 
Government employ in the Territory, induced many, relying 
on your action, to take donation claims on the lands of the 
Company? 



329 

Arts. — I don't suppose that my action had any influence on 
anybody else; if it did, I did not know it. 

Int. 41. — Were not your opinions with reference to the 
rights of the Company to these lands strong and decided, and 
did you not express them freely to all persons with whom you 
conversed on this subject? 

Arts. — My opinions certainly were decided, and I had no 
hesitation in expressing them ; but I never put them forward 
with a view to attracting settlers there. 

Int. 42. — Was not your opinion often asked by settlers upon 
these lands and others thinking of settling, in reference to the 
rights of the Company in the premises ? 

Ans. — I really don't remember. 

Int. 43. — How long after the spring of 1854 did you occupy 
the house built by you on your claim ? 

Ans. — Oil and on during the winter of 1854 and 1855, and 
at times during the summer of 1855. I kept my furniture, 
books, &c, there for certainly a year longer, excepting some 
articles which I removed into the post when I was employed 
there. I, however, continued to visit the place, and put im- 
provements on it, until I went on the Boundary Survey, and 
even occasionally after that. 

Int. 44. — Who supplied you during the winter of 1854-'5 
and the summer of 1855, with the beef used by you? 

Ans. — I got it partly from Dr. Tolmie and partly from the 
commissary at the garrison. 

Int. 45. — Was there never any beef brought to you at your 
house for sale by any person ? 

Ans. — None to my knowledge besides what Dr. Tolmie's 
men drove there to be killed on the post. 

Int. 46. — Do you feel certain that you never purchased 
beef except from those you have mentioned, and that you 
never had any offered you for sale during the years mentioned 
by any person ? 

Ans, — I have no recollection on the subject other than what 
I have already stated. 



330 



Cross- Examination Resumed May 28, 1867. 

Int. 47.— Do you know of any killing of cattle occurring 
near you while you lived on your own place? 

Ans. — I don't remember of any cattle being killed in my 
neighborhood, and I never saw any cattle killed but what 
were killed by the Company's servants. 

Int. 48. — State anything that has been told you by others 
concerning their killing the Company's cattle. 

Ans. — I have no recollection of anybody having told me 
that they had killed the Company's cattle, and I don't think 
it likely that any one who had surreptitiously killed cattle 
would have selected me as the proper confidant on the subject. 
I recollect Dr. Tolmie writing me some time during the Indian 
war that the remains of the Company's cattle were in the 
woods back of the plains. As those woods were at that time 
haunted by Indians, I have no doubt that a large part of the 
losses of the Company in cattle was due to them. In fact, the 
Indians would have had no hesitation at any rime, whether a war 
had existed or not, in killing cattle whenever they could do so 
with impunity. As the cattle naturally take to the woods in 
the heated weather, or when there is snow on the ground, op- 
portunities were not wanting. 

Int. 49. — Do we now understand you as giving it as your 
unbiassed opinion that the greater part of the loss of the com- 
pany's cattle was caused by Indians? 

Ans. — I do not say that the greater part of the loss was 
caused by Indians, but I do believe that a very considerable 
part was. That some of the settlers, including the discharged 
servants of the company, and even persons in their employ, 
ment, killed cattle I do not doubt. I think that another por 
tion of loss was due to the wolves and cougars, with which the 
bottom lands of the rivers were infested, but that the major 
part of the cattle were lost at all I do not believe. 

Int. 50. — Did any of the Indians ever confess to you that 
they killed the company's cattle? 

Ans. — I never inquired of them. 



331 

Int. 51. — Is this opinion which you have so confidently 
expressed, an opinion which was formed by you at the time of 
your residence on the Nisqually Plains? 

Ans. — Certainly it is. 

Int. 52. — Is it not affected, and does it not depend upon the 
testimony already given in this case, and now in print, proofs 
of which you have, as secretary, read over and corrected? 

Ans. — As one of the clerks it has been my duty to read over 
and correct the proofs of the testimony put in both by the 
claimants and the defence. I am not aware that my opinion 
has been altered by either. 

Int. 53. — As you never saw any cattle killed, and never 
were told by any person, white or Indian, that they had killed 
any, do you think that your means of knowledge are sufficient 
to enable you to give a correct opinion upon this matter with- 
out the aid of reports not under oath or the sworn testimony 
in the case? 

Ans. — My opinion was made up originally from common 
and universal report and belief in the country. 

Int. 54. — -Did the company ever refuse to sell you any 
sheep? 

Ans. — I never wanted to buy any on the hoof, but I under- 
stood that that was the case. 

Int. &5. — Was this understanding that you speak of any- 
thing more than a report that came to your ears? 

Ans. — It was so stated by settlers living on the plains, who 
mentioned as a reason for their not keeping sheep that Dr. 
Tolmie was afraid of disputes arising as to ownership, and for 
that reason refused to sell. 

Int. 56.— How do you know that the increase of the sheep 
kept by the company, beyond what they butchered, were sent 
away? 

Ans. — That is an impression which I obtained, I cannot dis- 
tinctly say now in what manner. I do not think there was 
any increase of the flocks on the plains during the time that 
I was there, and I know that large numbers were sent away. 
My belief is that the Company did not want to increase their 
stock there. 



332 

Int. 57. — Did you ever see a large number of sheep shipped 
to San Juan Island, or is that statement founded also on 
report? 

Ans. — I saw the sheep themselves at San Juan Island, and 
was told by Mr. Griffin, the Hudson's Bay Company's agent 
in charge, that he had brought them down there about the 
date specified in my former answer. 

Int. 58. — Did you see any bands of sheep shipped to Van- 
couver Island? 

Ans. — I have seen them shipped on board the Hudson's Bay 
Company's steamer Otter, which I understood to be bound to 
the Hudson's Bay Company's post at Victoria. 

Int. 59. — What year was this ; what time of the year ? 
Where was the Otter lying at the time? How were the sheep 
put on board? How many did you actually see taken on 
board yourself, and from whom did you understand that they 
were being taken to Vancouver's Island? 

Ans. — In answer to these questions, having no interest in 
the matter at the time, I never charged my memory with 
these details. The Otter frequently plied between Victoria, 
Steilacoom, and Nisqually, and other ports of the Sound, and 
often carried cattle and sheep. 

Int. 60. — How many times will you say that you saw sheep 
on board the Otter while at anchor, or at the wharf on Puget's 
Sound? 

Ans. — For the reason above stated, I am unable to say how 
often. That I have seen her with sheep on board I am very 
confident. 

Int. 61. — Do you, of your own personal knowledge, know 
of any sheep being shipped to California? 

Ans. — With regard to sending sheep to California, I cannot 
say positively whether I know it from personal observation or 
report, but I believe there is no doubt but that they were so 
sent. 

Int. 62. — Do you know anything more of the shipping of 
cattle to Victoria than that which you have already stated 
with reference to sheep? 

Ans. — I have frequently seen cattle and beef in quantities 



333 

on steamers bound for Victoria, both the Otter and, I think, 
the Constitution. The latter also brought beef to the Bound- 
ary Commission at Camp Simiahmoo. 

Int. 63. — How do you know that these cattle, thus shipped 
on the Otter and the Constitution, were the cattle of the Com- 
pany, which they were removing, and were not the cattle of the 
settlers, or cattle brought from Oregon for the purposes of 
shipment? 

Ans. — Just as I know that the beef I ate at Steilacoom was 
the beef of the Company, by common repute. I know, too, 
that the officers of the Hudson's Bay Company stocked their 
farms on Vancouver's Island with cattle brought from the 
plains. 

Int. 64. — Is not this last statement made by you, with refer- 
ence to stocking farms on Vancouver's Island, also from hear- 
say and report ? 

Ans. — Yes ; but I think the report came from the officers of 
the Company themselves, in conversation on the subject of 
farming on the Islands. In addition to the answer to the pre- 
vious question, I believe that Dr. Tolmie himself latterly pur- 
chased cattle from Oregon, or elsewhere, for sale. 

Int. 65. — Is not this last statement made by you, in answer 
to previous questions, also founded on hearsay and report? 

Ans. — Undoubtedly; almost everything one knows is from 
hearsay. 

Int. 66. — Have you not stated that you have studied law? 
and, as a lawyer, do you not know that your evidence should 
be founded on personal knowledge, and not from hearsay or 
report? 

Ans. — In a wide scope of inquiry like this, embracing events 
that occurred during a number of years, and embracing a great 
variety of subjects, it is not always possible to distinguish 
those things actually and personally seen from those we have 
heard at the time, and, being either undisputed or satisfactorily 
proved, have impressed themselves on one's mind as facts. 

Int. 61. — You have spoken in reference to the shipment of 
cattle in answer to Interrogatory 25, and you have also spoken 
in reference to the value of those cattle in answer to Inter- 



334 

rogatory 26, and you have also spoken of the shipments of 
cattle in answer to Cross-Interrogatory 62. In all these 
answers to these interrogatories, have you or have you not 
had reference to the cattle mentioned in Interrogatory 25? 

Ans.-— I don't know that they were the same individual cat- 
tle, nor do I know whether all the cattle shipped to Victoria 
and elsewhere were Spanish cattle, or whether parts of them 
were not American cattle. Those that were sent down there 
for stock, I presume, were American cattle or mixed. 

Int. 68. — At what year did the Constitution begin to run 
between Puget's Sound and Vancouver Island? 

Ans. — I do not remember. I think that Hunt and Scranton 
had the Constitution or some other vessel on the Sound in 
1856. 

Int. 69. — Was the beef brought to the Boundary Commis- 
sion, at Camp Simiahmoo, from the cattle of the Company on 
the Nisqually Plains ? 

Ans. — I think so, but I am not positive on that point. The 
Company furnished the principal supplies of beef to the Sound. 

Int. 70. — Was not this camp at Simiahmoo in the winter of 
1858-9? 

Ans. — The camp was established in the winter of 1857, and 
was maintained, I think, until some time in 1860. , 

Int. 71. — Is not all you know about the shipments of cattle 
on the Constitution derived from the fact that you saw cattle 
delivered from the Constitution at the camp at Simiahmo"o? 

Ans. — No. I don't think we ever had cattle delivered on 
the hoof at Simiahmoo while I was there. I have seen beef 
driven on board a steamer — I think the Constitution — once 
certainly at Steilacoom wharf, and I am very positive that 
they were for Vancouver Island, and belonged to the Com- 
pany. 

Int. 72. — How do you know that they belonged to the Com- 
pany? 

Ans. — I am almost equally positive that I saw the Compa- 
ny's servants with them. 

Int. 73. — Of what breed were these cattle? 

Ans. — I don't recollect. 



335 

Int. 74. — Are you riot farmer enough to see and note the 
difference between what you farmers call American cattle, and 
those which you have spoken of in your deposition as "wild 
cattle?" 

Arts. — yes, I am farmer enough to distinguish between the 
two, but I have not charged my memory with the character of 
a band of cattle that I saw a number of years ago, and which 
I never expected to drive, to own, or to eat. 

Int. 15. — State, as near as you can, the year in which this 
shipment took place. 

Arts. — Among frequent shipments of cattle from the plains; 
I cannot remember when this took place. 

Int. 76. — State as distinctly as you can, any other time that 
you can recollect when you saw cattle shipped upon the steamer 
you have spoken of from the wharf at Steilacoom. 

Ans. — That is the only occasion I can remember with dis- 
tinctness. 

Int. 77. — State any time when you can distinctly recollect 
you saw cattle shipped on any other steamer from the wharf 
at Steilacoom. 

Ans. — As I have said before, I do not distinctly recollect 
any particular occasions, but I know that I have seen cattle 
on steamers at various times, either at the wharf or on the 
Sound, and that I supposed they were the Company's cattle. 

Int. 78.- — Can you distinctly state that you ever saw any 
cattle on board the steamer Otter at the landing at Nisqually ? 

Ans. — I think I have; I am not positive, however, on the 
subject. 

. Int. 79. — How many neighbors did you have, near your place, 
who took up claims? 

Ans. — I do not remember; I recollect counting fourteen or 
fifteen claims of from one-half to an entire section, extending 
up the two forks of Steilacoom creek towards Montgomery's, 
but I can't give the entire number of claims taken on that 
part of the plains. 

Int. 80. — Was Murty Fahy a neighbor of yours; if so, how 
far was he from you? 

Ans. — He joined me on the east. 
23 P 



886 

Int. 81. — Was W. Dougherty a neighbor? 

Ans. — No, I think he lived to the north-eastward. 

Int. 82. — Were Theophilus Seal and A. J. Knecht neigh- 
bors; and if so, how far from you? 

Ans. — Knecht I do not remember; Theophilus Seal lived, 
I think, a mile or two from my house, to the southward; he 
was killed in the beginning of the Indian war. 

Int. 83.— Were J. M. Savage, A. Bird, John Bigny, Mr. 
Leckey, and Thomas Dean, neighbors of yours ; and, if so ? at 
what distance did they live from you? 

Ans. — I remember Savage's name. I think his farm w as- 
further up the creek. The brothers Bird had a mill some three 
miles from me, on Steilacoom creek. Bigny's claim was, I 
think, over towards the Puyallup. I don't remember where 
Leckey's claim was. Dean was the principal Puget's Sound 
Company's shepherd, and lived southwardly about three miles 
from me. 

Int. 84. — Did not these people whose names have been men- 
tioned build houses, and put up fences, and cultivate the land 
on which they resided? 

Ans. — To a greater or less extent they did. Dean occu- 
pied and cultivated a farm that belonged to the Company, and 
on the Company's account. 

Int. 85. — What did the land which they thus enclosed pro- 
duce ? 

Ans. — Small portions of it produced wheat, oats, potatoes, 
and other vegetables. The rest was almost entirely left open 
for grazing, or enclosed for that purpose. d 

Int. 86. — Did you see any sorrel inside of these inclosures ? 

Ans. — There was plenty of it inside of mine, and in fact 
everywhere where the sheep ranged. They carried it with 
them. 

Int. 87. — In your fields, did the sorrel spring up before the 
ground was broken, or afterwards? 

Ans. — The sorrel was* there before I came. After putting 
up the fences the sheep were of course stopped. 

Int. 88. — Does not the sorrel only grow in the ground which 
has been ploughed? 

Ans. — No, sir. It is almost the only thing that will grow 



337 

on ground that has been worn out by ploughing on those 
plains ; but it grows elsewhere also. 

Int. 89. — Was there on your farm any land so exhausted by 
ploughing that nothing but sorrel would grow on it ? 

Ans. — No. I never so far exhausted it. 

Int. 90.-7— State where it was that you knew of land so ex- 
hausted by ploughing that nothing but sorrel would grow 
on it. 

Ans.— Very little else would grow on the farm where Fort 
Steilacoom was built; very little else around Fort Nisqually ; 
and in various other places, called the American plain, between 
Nisqually and Fort Steilacoom, that had been used and after- 
wards abandoned. 

Int. 91. — Can you say how many years these lands, w T hich 
you say had been used and abandoned, had been cultivated 
and cropped before they were abandoned? 

Ans. — -No ; because they were abandoned before I went 
there. 

Int. 92. — Have you any knowledge other than mere report 
that sheep disseminated this sorrel, which you say grew on 
abandoned lands ? 

Ans. — It is universally admitted that sheep do distribute 
this seed ; and Dr. Tolmie admitted to me that the Company 
were responsible for its introduction. 

Int. 93. — Is it from that universal admission, or from your 
own personal experience, that you make the statement that 
the sheep have disseminated sorrel almost everywhere they 
have ranged ? 

Ans. — I have noticed that where sheep have been corralled, 
and the grass was most eaten out, that there was most sorrel. 

Int. 94. — How can you tell w T here sheep have been corralled, 
and where they have not ? 

Ans. — By bare spots on the ground, and the remains of 
fences where they had been corralled, and from the informa- 
tion of persons w r ho knew. 

Int. 95. — Are you not farmer enough to know that sheep 
are corralled, as you call it, on poor land for the purpose of 
enriching it? 



338 

Arts. — Yes, I know that perfectly -well ; and yet, at the same 
time, if sheep have been eating sorrel they "will drop the seed 
■with their manure. 

Int. 96. — Have you not seen at Olympia tomatoes, melons, 
squashes, and pumpkins raised upon the Sound? 

Ans. — Yes, but not that I recollect raised on the plains, 
except pumpkins, which I have once seen there raised by Mr. 
Lane. Tomatoes might grow in sheltered spots, but I don't 
think that they ripen well; they are subject to be destroyed by 
late and early frosts. 

Int. 97. — Do you know of any vegetable that will grow 
near Olympia that will not grow on the place you have called 
the Post Garden on the Nisqually Plains? 

A?is. — In the first place I don't know that all the vegetables 
I saw at Olympia were grown there. In the second place, 
plants will grow in the sheltered yards of a town that will 
not grow in the open fields. The vegetables grown at the 
Post Garden were, I think, chiefly roots. 

Int. 98. — Has not Mr. Keach an orchard of fruit-bearing 
apple trees within the boundaries of the Company's land, as 
shown by the map? 

Ans. — I don't know. 

Int. 99. — Are there not fr T ?it-bearing apple trees near the 
Company's post at Nisqually ? 

Ans. — None that I know of. 

Int. 100. — Did you personally attend to the care and culti- 
vation of the orchard which you planted at your farm? 

Ans. — Yes; I superintended the setting out of the trees 
personally, and in the subsequent year the pruning. 

Int. 101. — Was this an experiment of your's to ascertain 
whether the apple tree would grow on the plains? 

Ans. — The matter was- at that time altogether an experi- 
ment. One of Mr. Llewellen's people had come over from the 
"Willamette to set up a nursery there, and I purchased the 
trees from him and had them set out. I think there were very 
few, if ar.y, fruit trees in bearing on the plains previously. 

Int. 102. — Was not this man you mentioned engaged in the 
same business at the time you left the Sound? 



339 

Ans. — I don't know. 

Int. 103. — Had there no claims been taken between your 
place and Fort Steilacoom or Bird's mill before you left the 
country? 

Ans. — I think a German had taken a claim on Wyatchew 
Lake. 

Int. 104. — -Were you not actuated in taking this donation 
claim as much by the pleasantness of the situation, the oak 
trees affording shade, the small stream running through the 
land, its proximity to your friends at the garrison, as to the 
quality of the soil and its agricultural advantages ? 

Ans. — I took that claim from a variety of motives. In the 
first place my motive for taking a claim on the plains at all 
was to be out of the woods, and not necessitated to make a 
clearing. Again, as giving room to move about in any direc- 
tion and at all seasons of the year. The proximity to the 
garrison was also an inducement, not only on account of the 
society there, but because my employment in great part 
depended upon the military. The special inducement I had 
in taking that place was that after riding round and exam- 
ining the neighborhood I could find no better one. I certainly 
thought that this would have proved more productive than 
it did. 

Int. 105. — Did you not take this place, among other reasons, 
for the purpose of speculation, believing that in a few years 
that you could sell it for a price much more than it cost you? 

Ans. — Yes; and got bit in the expectation. 

Int. 106. — J)o you not know that many American settlers on 
the plains came over the mountains in the fall of 1853 and 
took claims? 

Ans. — There were some; I do not think there were many. 
Mr. Lane was one of them. He took a claim on, I think, 
Spootsilth Lake, but after building a house, and residing 
there one year, abandoned it, and went to the forks of the 
Puyallup river, outside of any land claimed by the Company. 

Int. 107. — Did not more American settlers come over in the 
fall of 1853 than at any other time ? 

Ans. — I can't say ; I was, during that fall, east of the 



340 

mountains, and did not reach Olympia until, I think, January 
1st. What settlers came over had by that time dispersed. 
The road across the mountains was open only one year after 
1853. A party, I think, under Colonel Allen, who had worked 
it the year previous, completed it so far as the mean-s would 
allow, but it soon afterwards washed out and became impassa- 
ble. Only a few emigrants arrived in the fall of 1854 by that 
route. 

Int. 108. — Did not the land enclosed within your fences 
produce a better crop of grass than that outside the fences? 
Ans. — Of course ; because it was not so eaten down. 
Int. 109. — Is not your personal and practical knowledge 
and experience of farming upon the Nisqually Plains, and of 
their agricultural and pastoral capacity, confined to the period 
which you spent on your place ? 

Ans. — No; whenever I was up at Steilacoom I used to ride 
out on the plains to see how things got on, and talk with my 
acquaintances. 

Int. 110. — Does the talk with your acquaintances form any 
part of that knowledge of the agricultural and pastoral capa- 
cities of the plains which you have detailed in this examina- 
tion ? 

Ans. — Their experience, added to what I saw myself, I pre- 
sume did considerably; it at least confirmed my former views. 
Int. 111. — Before you left the Sound, had any portions of 
the lands been enclosed for grazing purposes? 

Ans. — Yes; for grazing purposes, and further to secure the 
donation claims of individuals. 

Int. 112. — Have you not reduced to writing the statement 
of witnesses about to be examined in behalf of the United 
States in this case, and have you not given those notes to coun- 
sel of the United States? ' 

Ans. — Yes, sir; on several occasions I have done so. There 
being a great many different points involved in the case, and 
neither of the examining counsel having been personally 
acquainted with the witnesses or the subjects within their 
knowledge, I have usually informed counsel of what points 
to examine upon. When the witness was present or speedily 



341 

tt) be examined, I have usually clone so verbally, or by a short 
memorandum in writing. In a few eases, where some time 
might elapse before examination, or I did not expect to be 
present, I have given fuller minutes to counsel. 

Int. 113. — Have you not furnished counsel for the United 
States questions and also matters of inquiry to be propounded 
to witnesses that have been produced on behalf of the claimant 
in this case? 

Ans. — Yes; as there were a great many matters within my 
knowledge which could not be within the knowledge of counsel. 

Int. 114. — Have you not corresponded with persons resid- 
ing on this side of the continent, as well as with others residing 
in Washing-ton and Oregon Territories, with a view to elicit 
from them evidence or information by which the cause of the 
claimant might be weakened or defeated. 

Ans. — Frequently, so far as I considered the justice or the 
rights of the United States dictated. 

Int. 115. — Do you consider this part of your duties, as clerk 
of this Commission, paid by the United States, or is it the 
action of your own personal feeling in this matter? 

Ans.— I do not consider it as at all incompatible with my 
duties as one of the clerks of the Commission; I have acted in 
the matter as I think a citizen of the United States possess- 
ing information valuable to the Government, and requested to 
furnish it by the counsel for the Government, should do, for 
the purpose of preventing imposition upon the United States. 
I neither consider it part of my duty, nor incompatible with 
my duty, officially. 

Cross-Examination resumed, May 30, 1867. 

Int. 116. — Have you not, without the request of counsel 
beforehand, made search for and found witnesses on behalf of 
the United States in this case, learned what they would testify 
to, and then informed the counsel of the names of the wit- 
nesses and the substance of their evidence? 

Ans. — Yes. 



342 

Int. 117. — Jdave you not been diligent in this matter, and 
attended to it with zeal? 

Ans. — Yes, sir. 

Int. 118. — Is not this action of yours the product of a 
strong personal feeling on your part? 

Ans.— I wish to state distinctly that I have no personal 
unkind feeling towards any officer or employe of the Hudson's 
Bay or fuget's Sound Agricultural Company, but, on the 
contrary, my relations with them have always been of the 
most agreeable kind; that I have received from many of them 
the most open hospitality and friendly assistance in the pur- 
suit of my studies; that the only feeling with which I have 
been actuated in this case has been a strong conviction of the 
injustice and exorbitancy of these claims. 

Int. 119. — Have you not often, and before the commence- 
ment of this proceeding, and while you resided upon Puget's 
Sound, openly expressed your opinion against any rights of the 
Puget's Sound Company to any land upon the Nisqually 
Plains ? 

Ans.— In regard to the claims of the Puget's Sound Agri- 
cultural Company, as set forth in their memorial, that is, the 
pretended claim to the whole of the open country between the 
Nisqually and the Puyallup rivers, Puget's Sound and the 
mountains, I have often and openly expressed my opinion as 
against their right, when the subject has arisen in conversa- 
tion, or my opinion has been asked by those interested. I have 
always looked upon the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company 
as an illegitimate child of the Hudson's Bay Company, and 
that the object in forming the association was to accomplish 
indirectly what the Hudson's Bay Company could not accom- 
plish directly. In my opinion, before the treaty of 1846, the 
Company had no legal existence, except as among the part- 
ners thereto. It was simply an association of squatters upon 
the public lands of the United States, and acknowledged to 
be a Company only in that treaty, whereby the right of the 
United States to the territories on the Pacific, north of the 
49th parallel, was given up to Great Britain. As to the ques- 
tion whether certain farms situated within the area of this 



343 

claim have not by the terms of that treaty been granted to this 
supposititious Company, I have had doubts, which I have ex- 
pressed. 

Int. 120. — Do you not believe that you have freely expressed 
this opinion, or opinions in substance like it, in the presence 
of settlers, or persons thinking of settling upon the Nisqually 
plains? 

Arts. — I think it is more than likely that I did, but not with 
any view of inducing them to settle there; and, for that mat- 
ter, my opinions were shared by all the officers of the Gov- 
ernment, and every other American who looked into the ques- 
tion, and, any way, my opinion would have had no more influ- 
ence than the opinion of any one else, not being in any way 
official. 

Int. 121. — Do you mean to include in the term officers of 
the Government, both the civil and military? 

Ans. — Both, so far as I ever heard them express their opin- 
ion. 

Int. 122.— Did you not often hear these opinions expressed 
by these officers in the presence of persons who were citizens 
of the country or intending to become so ? 

Ans. — I have no recollection on the subject. 

Int. 123. — Is it not your impression that these opinions 
were freely expressed without reference to who might be 
within hearing? 

Ans. — Very probably. The topic was one of general in- 
terest in the country. It was one not only of great impor- 
tance to the Government of the United States, but came home 
to every man's door. I do not think there was any motive, 
therefore, either in promulgating or concealing those opin- 
ions. 

Int. 124.-— Did you remain in employment at Fort Town- 
shend until you joined the Boundary Commission ? 

Ans. — No ; I think I was at Steilacoom after leaving Fort 
Townshend, before I went to Victoria — before joining the Com- 
mission. On this point, however, I will not be positive. 

Int. 125. — Did you go into Camp Simiahmoo after joining 
the Commission ? 



344 

Arts. — Yes. 

Int. 126. — How far is Fort Townshend from Fort Steilacoom, 
and what is the communication ? 

Ans. — About eighty miles. The communication is by 
water. 

Int. 127 '. — Where was the camp of Simiahmoo situated, what 
distance from Steilacoom, and what was the communication? 

Ans. — The camp of Simiahmoo was on Simiahmoo Bay, near 
the forty-ninth parallel. The distance from Steilacoom was, 
by travelled route, about one hundred and forty-five miles. 
The communication was also by water. 

Int. 128. — Where is Astoria situated, and how far from 
Steilacoom ? 

Ans. — Astoria is in the State of Oregon, and not far from 
the mouth of the Columbia river, distant from Steilacoom, by 
the travelled route, by way of the Cowlitz river, about one 
hundred and fifty miles. 

George Gibbs. 

Washington, May 30, 1867. 



In tlie matter of the Claim of the Pugefs Sound Agricultural 
Company against the United States. 

Direct Examination oftMr. George Gribbs resumed this 11th day 
day of August, 1867. 

Int. 1. — Please to state whether you desire to make any 
further explanation in reference to the matters of Cross-Inter- 
rogatories, Nos. 17 to 25, inclusive, on the subject of your 
land claim on the Nisqually Plains ; and, if so, proceed to 
make the same. 

Ans. — Yes, sir, I do. On looking over my papers I have 
found a rough draft of the second notification to which I have 
heretofore referred as giving the revised boundaries of my 
claim, and by that rough draft of an affidavit, signed by my- 



345 

self, I find that I had resided upon and cultivated that part of 
the public land in Washington Territory particularly described 
in the annexed notification to the Register and Receiver of 
said Territory, continuously, from the 17th day of-May, 1854, 
to the 16th day of February, 1865, at which date the said 
affidavit was subscribed and sworn to before the Register of 
said Territory. 

Int. 2. — Have you or not refreshed your memory by inspec- 
tion of that original draft? 

Ans. — I have. 

Int. 3. — Please to state whether or not, having so refreshed 
your memory, you are able to state the facts from recollection 
in the terms in which you stated them in response to Inter- 
rogatory No. 1, above. 

Ans. — I am. 

Cross-Examination. 

Int. 1. — At the time of your cross-examination on the 26th 
day of May, 1867, had you any recollection whatever of this 
draft of an affidavit signed by you which you have this day 
produced? 

Ans. — I had a distinct recollection, as I stated in my depo- 
sition on that or some subsequent day, of having filed a second 
notification somewhat changing the boundaries of my claim 
in order to accommodate them with those of my neighbors. I 
had a vague impression at the time that it was necessary for 
me to renew and post-date the time of my taking that claim, 
and that I might therefore have done so. I find, on reference 
to this renewed notification, that the date of the original claim 
was preserved. 

Int. 2. — On what day did you swear to your notification of 
the taking of your donation claim? 

Ans. — I made one notification, accompanied by an oath, of 
my taking a claim in the spring of 1854, as I believe, and at 
or about the date expressed in the affidavit to which I have 
referred. When, in the subsequent spring of 1855, I altered 
the lines to make them conform to those of my neighbors, I 



346 

made the new affidavit with simply those changes, which were 
immaterial, my residence and occupation of the whole claim 
having heen just as full and complete as if the limits had been 
correctly described in the first place. 

Int. 3. — On what day did you swear to that second or new 
affidavit that you have spoken of in your last answer? 

Ans. — As I believe, on the 16th day of February, 1855. 

Int. 4. — Are you now positive that you made this affidavit 
on the 16th day of February, 1855? 

Ans. — I suppose so, from the fact that the draft is so dated. 

Int. 5. — Have you any recollection of the officer before whom 
your affidavit was made, and the name of that officer ? 

Ans. — None, except I presume, as of course, that it was 
made before the proper officer. 

Int. 6. — Do you know who was present at the time you took 
the oath ? 

Ans. — I do not, excepting that Charles H. Mason, Secre- 
tary of the Territory, and I think at that time Acting Gov- 
ernor, and Richard Arnold, a Lieutenant in the Army of the 
United States, now Captain and Brevet Brigadier General, 
were attesting witnesses to the facts that they knew me per- 
sonally and knew that I had resided upon that claim and cul- 
tivated the same continuously between the date I had stated I 
took it and the date of that affidavit; and I presume they were 
present when I made the affidavit, as they probably made theirs 
at the same time. 

Int. 7. — Do you know anything more of the date on which 
you swore to your second notification on your donation claim, 
and as to who were present at the taking of the oath, than 
what you have learned by the inspection of this unsworn-to 
notification, which I now hold, and which you have mentioned 
and referred to in your answer-in-chief of this day? 

Ans. — No; I should not have recollected the details set 
forth in that paper. I recollect distinctly taking the claim 
and filing a notification thereof in the spring of 1854, and I 
also recollect correcting the lines and filing a new notification 
subsequently; the date of that notification I should not have 
remembered without reference to the memorandum draft already 



347 

described, nor, but for tbat, should I even have remembered 
that Mr. Mason and Lieutenant Arnold were the attesting wit- 
ness until this paper recalled the fact to my memory. 

Int. 8. — As this memorandum draft is merely signed and 
dated, but not sworn to, do you now feel certain that affidavits 
corresponding to the drafts in this memorandum were actually 
sworn to by yourself and C. H. Mason and Richard Arnold, 
on the 16th day of February, 1855? 

Ans. — I do. 

Int. 9. — Before what officer were those affidavits made? 

Ans. — I do not remember; but by refreshing my memory by 
inspection of the draft I presume before the Register of the 
Land Office. 

Int. 10. — Who was Register at that time? 

Ans. — I do not remember. 

Int. 11. — Do you remember whether the oath was taken in 
the office of the Register or in that of C. H. Mason? 

Ans. — No, I don't. 

Int. 12. — Did the Register of the Land Office furnish the 
printed form or blank on which this memorandum of notifica- 
tion and affidavit has been drawn up ? 

Ans.— I don't remember. 

George Gibbs. 



District of Columbia, "I 
County of Washington, j 

I, Nicholas Callan, a notary public in and for the county 
and district aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing 
depositions, hereto attached, of George W. Lee, William B. 
McMurtrie, and George Gibbs, witnesses produced by and on 
behalf of the United States, as also the cross-examination of 
Edward J. Allen, a witness previously examined in chief before 
Samuel H. Huntington, clerk of the Court of Claims, in the 
matter of the Claim of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Com- 
pany against the same, now pending before the British and 
American Joint Commission for the final adjustment thereof, 
were taken and reduced to writing in the said city of Wash- 



348 

ington, under my direction, by a person agreed upon by Charles 
C. Beaman, jr., Esq., attorney for the United States, and Ed- 
ward Lander, Esq., attorney for said Company, according to 
the dates appended to the several depositions when they were 
respectively signed. I further certify that to each of said wit- 
nesses, before his examination, I administered the following 
oath: 

"You swear that the evidence you shall give in the matter 
of the Claims of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company 
against the United States of America shall be the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth: so help you God." 

And that, after the same was reduced to writing, the depo- 
sition of each witness was carefully read to and then signed 
by him in the presence of the counsel for claimants and de- 
fendants. I further certify that the map enclosed, and marked 
"A. W. W. B.," is the one referred to in the examination of 
the said W. B. McMurtrie. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and 
[seal.] official seal this 24th day of August, 1867. 

N. Callan, 
Notary Public. 



In the matter of the Claim of the Pug 'et 's Sound Agricultural 
Company against the United States. 

Deposition of Greorge Suckley, 31. D., of the city of New York, 
duly sworn and examined in the said city, by virtue of an 
agreement between Charles C. Beaman, jr., agent and 
attorney for the United States of America, and Edward 
Lander, agent and attorney for the Puget's Sound Agri- 
cultural Company, before me, W. H. Gardner, a notary 
public of the State of New York, duly commissioned and 
sworn, on the part of the United States. 

Testimony of George Suckley, M. D. 
Witness recalled. 
Int. 1. — In your answer to Interrogatory 11, in your pre- 
vious cross-examination, you say "It is my belief and convic- 



349 

tion that twelve miles square of the Puget's Sound land claimed 
by the Company is naturally of greater agricultural value 
than a tract of land of the same size in Duchess county, New 
York." Please explain more fully what you meant by that 
answer. 

(The re-examination of this witness in relation to his answer 
to a cross-interrogatory in his former examination, which was 
closed more than fourteen months ago, objected to.) 

Ans. — I did not mean Duchess county as it now is, in its 
improved state, since it has been cultivated by white people; 
but I meant by saying "naturally" that, in the condition of 
the sections, compared as they existed prior to cultivation, I 
would prefer the land on the said claim. My answer had no 
reference to increase in value caused by improvements of civ- 
ilized man. 

George Suckley. 



State oe New York, 
City and County of New York 

I, W. H. Gardner, a notary in and for the State of New 
York, duly commissioned and sworn, do hereby certify that the 
foregoing deposition of George Suckley was taken and reduced 
to writing by me, in the presence of said witness, from his state- 
ments, on this twenty-third day of July, 1867, at No. 103 St. 
Mark's Place, in the city of New York, in pursuance of a 
verbal agreement made between Chas. C. Beainan, jr., Esq., 
as counsel for the United States, and Edward Lander, Esq., 
counsel for the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company. I fur- 
ther certify that, to said witness, before his examination, I 
administered the following oath: 

"You do swear, in the presence of the ever-living God, that 
the answers to be given by you to the interrogatories and 
cross-interrogatories to be propounded to you by me in the 
matter of the Claim of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Com- 
pany against the United States, shall be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth." 



350 

I farther certify that the said deposition was by me care- 
fully read to said witness and then signed by him in my 
presence. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand 
[seal.] and affixed my official seal this twenty-third day of 
July, in the year, 1867. 

W. H. Gardner, 

Notary Public. 



Hi '% 



•*>! 



— a. • ir 



